Gender and Early Learning Environments [1 ed.] 9781617353291, 9781617353277

Citation preview

Gender and Early Learning Environments

A volume in Research on Women and Education Beverly Irby and Janice Koch, Series Editors

Research on Women and Education Beverly Irby and Janice Koch, Series Editors

Defining and Redefining Gender Equity in Education Edited by Janice Koch and Beverly Irby Gender and Schooling in the Early Years Edited by Janice Koch and Beverly Irby

Gender and Early Learning Environments

Edited by

Beverly J. Irby Sam Houston State University

Genevieve H. Brown Sam Houston State University

INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING, INC. Charlotte, NC • www.infoagepub.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gender and early learning environments / edited by Beverly J. Irby, Genevieve H. Brown. p. cm. -- (Research on women and education) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-61735-327-7 (pbk.) -- ISBN 978-1-61735-328-4 (hardcover) -ISBN 978-1-61735-329-1 (e-book) 1. Sex differences in education. 2. Gender identity in education. 3. Early childhood education--Social aspects. 4. Girls--Education (Early childhood) I. Irby, Beverly J. II. Brown, Genevieve. LC212.9.G399 2011 372.1822--dc22 2010049813

Copyright © 2011 Information Age Publishing Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America

Contents Preface.................................................................................................. vii 1 “Their Play Is Different”: Power, Language, and Gender Socialization at a Waldorf Daycare....................................................... 1 Marguerite Anne Fillion Wilson 2 Girls and Boys, Work and Play: Gendered Meanings and Participation in Early Childhood Education..................................... 29 Sue Nichols 3 Young Children’s Gendered Positioning and Emotional Scenarios in Play Narratives................................................................ 47 Samara MadridLaurie Katz 4 May I Still Call You Honey-Man: One Child, Vacillating Gender, and the Experiences of Home, School, and Community.................................................................................... 67 Robin Fox 5 On Being a Boy or a Girl in Mrs. Sanders’ First Grade Classroom............................................................................................. 83 Paula P. Guerra LombardiAndrea S. Foster 6 How South African Teachers Construct Gender in the Early Years of Schooling................................................................................ 95 Deevia Bhana 7 Race, Space, and Girls’ Interactions on Urban Playgrounds.......... 109 Eleanor R. Spindler 8 A Hallmark Moment?......................................................................... 137 Barbara E. PolnickGene Polnick



v

vi  CONTENTS

9 Child Abuse: Traumatic Influences and Treatment........................ 151 Sandra Johnson 10 Teacher Education Students’ Perceptions of Gender Differences in Children..................................................................... 173 Linda M. Creighton About the Contributors..................................................................... 183

Preface I remember the first day my mother drove me to Montessori School. She waved to me smiling, as I walked away and she said, “Learn something!” in a happy vibrant voice. Terrified, I realized that she was going away, and I was going to go through that door alone. —Gene-Tey Shin, 1998

Five years ago, the second volume of the Research on Women and Education Series was published, titled Gender and Schooling in the Early Years. “About time,” readers remarked and, at that point, the series editors and contributors acknowledged that the second volume in the series on women and education, the first devoted entirely to the early years of schooling, was, in fact, the tip of the iceberg. When we consider the significant issues that pervade early learning environments as children are constructing identities that carry them through their education, learn something takes on considerably more meaning than simply learning language arts and mathematics. What young children learn is part of the explicit and hidden curricula that include, among other things, powerful messages about what it means to be a girl and a boy in contemporary culture. Small children learn how their gendered identities are experienced in the larger world of school. The hidden curriculum, the social rules and values that schools and teachers transmit to students, forges children’s gender identities in particular ways. The authors in this current volume, addressing early learning environments, seek to shed light on these hidden messages and, by doing so, once again raise consciousness that gender bias is alive and well and is affecting young learners, and consequently, society as a whole. Gender and Early Learning Environments, pages vii–ix Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

vii

viii    PREFACE

After extensive study, biologist Lise Eliot (2009) affirmed that claims of sex differences based on innate differences in the brains of girls and boys are either “blatantly false,” “cherry picked from single studies,” or “extrapolated from rodent research.” That being said, parents of children from both sexes assert the very different ways their girls and boys behave and react as small children. Girls are more verbal and social by kindergarten, while boys lag behind verbally and socially and with fine motor skill development. In short, girls seem to have an easier time of it until the onset of puberty when their vulnerability emerges starkly when compared to boys. Boys tend to be more vulnerable in the early years and more susceptible than girls to learning disorders, while girls’ vulnerabilities emerge in early pubescence as they struggle with images of femininity and are much more susceptible to abandoning math and science and to acquiring eating disorders. Clearly, however, it is the ways in which the adult world has interpreted developmental differences and cultural and gendered stereotypes that have produced enormous behavioral and dispositional differences as girls and boys develop. A large number of adults believe in pink brains and blue brains, and for those who assert that these innate differences are also insurmountable, there are genuine consequences. Adults will behave in ways that make the gender stereotyped claims come true, and whether they do this consciously or subconsciously, “kids rise or fall according to what we believe about them” (Eliot, 2009). By age one, children have settled into sex-based play and identify strongly with it. In early learning environments, there is a need for teachers and other adults in the environment to make it possible for both boys and girls to engage in a wide range of activities and experiences that expose them to the potential for developing many different types of talents. In a major northeastern city, young children are screened through testing for entry into a large number of gifted kindergarten classes around the city. A news article describing the phenomenon bemoaned the large number of girls in these classes. Clearly, here was an example of little boys lagging behind for all the maturational reasons mentioned above. In one gifted kindergarten class, an observer noticed how segregated the activities became when children had free choice. Four boys were huddled in the block corner building an intricate structure with intersecting highways. The one girl in this activity was using Post-its to make signs for the structure. For thirty-five years researchers have been describing this differentiated play—boys in the block corner building and girls making the drawings. Yet, here, in 2010, the same phenomenon was occurring even though we have learned that interventions on behalf of the equitable distribution of activities really work. Selma Greenberg (1985), noting that girls liked to play near the teacher, recommended moving the block corner near the teacher’s desk or table. Girls need opportunities to build tall structures and boys need opportunities to work on their fine motor skills.

Preface    ix

This volume explores a wide range of topics addressing early childhood influences on gender and the development of the whole child. From images on greeting cards to manifestations of abuse in girls and boys, this volume asks the reader to consider the ways in which equal treatment is inequitable. The result of strong leadership in early childhood environments must be an understanding on the part of teachers of how gendered expectations during these years are socially and culturally constructed. There are many ways in which both girls and boys may be encouraged to think outside of the box and pursue visual and spatial as well as oral and written activities. One chapter explores how encouraging girls in mathematics and science at an early age may stem the attrition from those fields that many girls experience at the onset of adolescence. The gender socialization of young children is fraught with assumptions and traditions that are not in the best interests of young children. Learning more about these disparities is a major goal of this volume and the hope of all who seek equity in and through education. This second volume, Gender and Early Learning Environments, the third in the Research on Women and Education Series, I believe will be met with the same cries of “about time” as was the previous volume, Gender and Schooling in the Early Years. The pervasive issue of how early childhood educators define what it means to be male and female in contemporary culture needs to be made visible, explored, evaluated, and turned on its head if the children are to be justly served. Janice Koch, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Hofstra University References Eliot, L. (2009). Pink brain, blue brain: How small differences grow into troublesome gaps and what we can do about it. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Greenberg, S. (1985). Educational equity in early childhood environments. In S.  Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving sex equity through education (pp. 457– 469). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Shin, Gene-Tey (1998). Growing stories. In Nelson, C. L. & K. A. Wilson (Eds.), Seeding the process of multicultural education. Plymouth, MN: Minnesota Inclusiveness Program.

This page intentionally left blank.

Chapter 1

“Their Play Is Different” Power, Language, and Gender Socialization at a Waldorf Daycare Marguerite Anne Fillion Wilson

When children learn to speak a language, they also learn to use it in ways that can reflect, resist, or ignore their culture’s norms of acceptable feminine and masculine behavior. —Sheldon, 1996, p. 1

As I walk into Shining Star Daycare,1 I am overwhelmed by the gentle, kind, soft energy that permeates the setting. Soft light enters from the window, and all of the materials in the rooms are made from natural substances such as wood, cotton, and silk. A vase of flowers sits on the small table around which small chairs are carefully placed, and soft pink and blue pastel colors permeate the room. Children are deeply engaged in play, and teachers are walking around, busily attending to their responsibilities. But above and beyond all of these wonderful impressions, something strikes me: Except for one boy playing in the corner, the rest of the participants are female, including the two teachers and myself, the researcher. My interest in gender construction and socialization in this Waldorf daycare emerged in the context of a larger ethnographic study of power, Gender and Early Learning Environments, pages 1–28 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

1

2    M. A. F. WILSON

social class privilege, language socialization, and child development epistemologies in this site (Wilson, 2008). Through this analysis, I came to understand that, instead of moving away from traditional classroom practices as Waldorf alternative education is intended to, the discourses evident in the site reproduced the ways of speaking and interacting typical in traditional mainstream classrooms. I had briefly examined social positioning into gender roles as one aspect of this social reproduction, but I was left wondering exactly what the processes of gender construction and socialization were, and how they had evolved in this particular context. What is Waldorf Education? In 1919, initiated by the Austrian scientist and philosopher Rudolf Steiner, the first Waldorf School was opened in Stuttgart, Germany, for the children of the workers at the Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory (Barnes, 1980). The school was opened at the request of the factory owner, Emil Molt, and under the supervision of Steiner and his ideas about children and education (Barnes, 1980). The movement spread to the United States in 1928, when the first Rudolf Steiner School was founded in New York (Nicholson, 2000). The Waldorf school movement has since spread throughout North America and the world, and many families, particularly in the United States, are choosing to send their children to Waldorf schools as alternatives to public education. The notion that public schools are no longer adequate for (privileged) children, combined with Steiner’s goal to create radical change in society through radical change in education, serves to explain why the Waldorf school movement is so popular in the United States today. The vast majority of Waldorf schools are private, with many of the students coming from white, middle- to upper-class backgrounds. This exclusivity is sometimes cited as a criticism of these schools, along with skepticism that students, sheltered from the “real world” in their education, are not prepared to handle the challenges of modern life. Despite these criticisms, the movement continues to flourish, perhaps indicating the middle- and upperclasses’ increasing willingness to invest in private alternative schooling as the quality of U.S. public schooling as perceived by many, declines. But what exactly is Waldorf education, according to the literature? This question is deceptively simple; many descriptions of the Waldorf model, including Steiner’s, are vague at best. This vagueness is explained by the fact that the model is based on unexamined and deeply held cultural assumptions about children and education that are not made explicit in these writings. Despite the elusiveness of these texts, it is still possible to glean some main points about what Waldorf education looks like. First and foremost,

“Their Play Is Different”    3

the Waldorf school is intended as a unique alternative form of educating children that focuses on protecting childhood, as the Waldorf Answers website indicates: “The main reason [to send children to Waldorf schools] is that Waldorf schools honor and protect the wonder of childhood. Every effort is expended to make Waldorf schools safe, secure and nurturing environments for the children, and to protect their childhood from harmful influences from the broader society.” This dedication to protecting childhood—and, as I demonstrate in this chapter, protecting girls’ childhood more than boys’—from the dangers of mainstream schooling and society is a theme that returns repeatedly in these writings (Edmunds, 2004; McDermott, 1984; Steiner, 1988, 1996), although these specific dangers remain vaguely defined. The Waldorf model is based on a specific view of children and child development, a notion that children are vulnerable and weak and therefore must be protected, and a stage theory that largely reproduces conventional human development theory. This stage theory is based on seven-year periods: in the first stage (birth to 7 years), children are viewed as mainly concerned with play and imitation, and are not yet capable of thought; in the second stage (7–14 years), children are viewed as needing emotional and physical connections to their academic subjects through hands-on learning; and in the final stage of childhood (14–21 years), children are viewed as adolescents who need intellectual stimulation (Steiner, 1988). Throughout these stages, Steiner discussed children in universal terms, only mentioning gender differences as a side note in several places. Steiner’s developmental stage theory (which reproduces conventional human development theory, and Piaget (1970) in particular) provides the basis for the Waldorf curriculum. In this sense, Waldorf education is regarded as developmentally appropriate and child-centered because the goal is to meet the children where they currently are, developmentally speaking. As a result of this model, academic learning, particularly literacy learning, is delayed until children reach the second stage of childhood, at age 7 (Barnes, 1980; Edmunds, 2004). At this point, Steiner posited, children are ready to take on more intellectual demands, although they are not fully ready for intellectual engagements until they reach adolescence at age 14. In addition to developmental appropriateness, Barnes (1980) explained that Waldorf education “is an art” (p. 334), meaning both that the arts feature prominently in the Waldorf curriculum (Easton, 1997), and that the teaching is artistic in the sense that the material is presented in a lively manner, giving the students the greatest amount of direct experience with the material. It is important to note, however, that this last aspect of artistic education was entirely absent in the contexts I observed: The teaching style more closely

4    M. A. F. WILSON

resembled a colonial (Watson-Gegeo & Gegeo, 1994) or banking (Freire, 1970) approach to learning than anything else (Wilson, 2008). Other authors have also written about the components of Waldorf education, although none of them have focused on gender socialization in the Waldorf context. Rivers and Soutter (1996) showed that cooperation, rather than competition, characterizes the Waldorf school experience, with evidence from a Waldorf school in England in which only a very small amount of bullying behavior was observed. Indeed, as Nicholson (2000) indicated, many forms of representation are used in the Waldorf classroom, which is intended to foster the “development of diverse forms of knowing” (Eisner, 1994, p. 83). Diverse forms of knowing, of course, are defined here within the boundaries of privileged middle-class values and assumptions. Indeed, Henry (1992) showed just how different the Waldorf perspective can be, both in theory and practice, from the norm of public education in the United States. She contrasted the rituals of two schools—a Catholic college preparatory school and a Waldorf school. She found that these two schools have very different ontological and epistemological assumptions about the world, the nature of knowledge, relationships between people, and perceptions of the individual. Waldorf philosophy, on the one hand, is characterized by resisting the modern world as depersonalizing, fragmented, and alienating; emphasizing an equal power structure between parents, teachers, and administrators; and viewing child development as “unfolding according to a predestined plan” (Henry, p. 305). The Catholic school, on the other hand, is characterized by awareness of time and a need for efficiency; a hierarchical power structure among the adults; and the child being “best able to be perfected when faced with a series of challenges and tests” (Henry, p. 305). These are significant differences, but my study shows the ways in which Waldorf schools may be more similar to mainstream schools, specifically in their approach to gender constructions, than Henry allowed in her analysis. In this chapter, situating my inquiry within the context of my prior research on social reproduction in Waldorf education (Wilson, 2008), I argue that the Waldorf approach to gender socialization tends to reproduce traditional notions of gendered behavior and roles, teaching children from a very young age that there are very specific and rigidly defined ways of being male and female. In the remainder of this chapter, I will review the relevant gender socialization literature, discuss my critical theoretical stance and positionality, describe my ethnographic methods of data collection and analysis, and present my main findings as they relate to gender socialization, adult power, and children’s agency.

“Their Play Is Different”    5

Gender Socialization of Young Children: The Prevalence of Difference and Dominance Assumptions Until now, researchers have not examined gender role negotiation specifically in Waldorf settings; however, many researchers have studied the gender role socialization of young children in a variety of (mainly mainstream) settings. In an early study of three urban (but mostly white and middle-class) kindergarten classrooms, Borman and O’Reilly (1987) used an explicitly feminist standpoint to examine how girls and boys in these classrooms learn how to “do” gender. The researchers assumed both the “difference” and “dominance” perspectives (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2003, p. 1) in their theoretical and methodological approach, since they explicitly looked for both differences between boys’ and girls’ behavior and the ways in which adults convey dominant, androcentric gender ideologies in their socialization practices. Guided by their assumptions, Borman and O’Reilly (1987) found that boys and girls have different and separate discourse styles, that there is considerable gender segregation in the classroom, and that adults reinforce these practices. They stated that “the common factor across all [three classroom] settings is the formation of same sex groupings with carefully monitored boundaries, boundaries that exclude opposite (and sometimes other same) sex peers” (Borman & O’Reilly, p. 65). These findings are replicated in my present study; however, Borman and O’Reilly did not examine the diversity in children’s gender performances or the ways in which children resist gender stereotyping, a crucial component of socialization that I include in my analysis. In a similar, more recent study, Chick, Heilman-Houser, and Hunter (2002) conducted a qualitative observation-based analysis of gender differences in preschool-age children in the context of a private childcare center. Although no information is given as to the children’s race or class, we can assume that since the childcare center is private, they are primarily white and middle/upper-class. The researchers found that several indicators of adult-perpetuated gender inequity existed in this classroom: Boys obtained more adult attention, even when they were in the minority; boys exerted more control and authority when their numbers were equal to girls; teachers reinforced children for stereotypically masculine and feminine behaviors; there was linguistic bias in the teachers’ talk; and the toys were also stereotyped. However, the researchers also present a small amount of evidence of adults counteracting these gender stereotypes in their speech with the children. Again, however, there is no direct examination of power, diversity in gender performance, or children’s resistance.

6    M. A. F. WILSON

In addition to school settings, researchers have also examined the role of parents and the home environment in socializing children into gendered behavior. Denham, Zoller, and Couchoud (1994) examined parents’ role in socializing children into understanding their own and others’ emotions. Coming from a quantitative psychological tradition, the authors examined the parents’ socializing efforts of 47 white, middle-class preschoolers over the course of a 15-month longitudinal study. One prong of their analysis concerned gender differences, and the authors found that socialization practices differed significantly between girls and boys. The authors report that “maternal negative emotional responsiveness was a negative predictor of boys’, not girls’, emotion understanding” (Denham et al, 1994, p. 935). They attributed this difference to greater attention on the part of parents to boys’ negative emotions and their own negative emotional reactions to boys’ misbehavior. Thus, again, researchers assumed fundamental gender differences in child behavior and base their conclusions on these assumptions, without an examination of the socially constructed and diverse nature of gendered performance in sites of power negotiation. Sheldon (1996) introduced a special journal issue on language and gender by promoting a theoretical framework that takes into account the context and the social construction of gender, particularly children’s contributions to this construction. However, the remaining articles in the issue do not follow this framework. Reese, Haden, and Fivush (1996) examined conversational dyads between parents and preschool-aged children in a white, middle-class community, as the participants co-constructed autobiographical accounts of past events. One of the questions Reese, Haden, and Fivush (1996) asked early on in the paper—“parents may socialize girls and boys into different styles of reminiscing, but in what ways do children themselves contribute to these emerging gender differences?” (p. 33)—is not taken into consideration in their final analysis, where the authors instead focus on the ways in which parents differentially respond to children’s utterances by gender, and how girls’ and boys’ accounts are fundamentally different. There is no examination of power, diversity, or resistance in this article, either. In a study from the same special issue, Ely, Gleason, and McCabe (1996) examined the frequency of reported speech in boys’ and girls’ conversations with their parents. The children were from middle-class Canadian families, and they were two years old at the onset of the study. Like Reese and her colleagues (1996), these authors are careful not to ascribe gender fully to socialization, instead balancing their perspective on the nature–nurture fence, even though their data point mainly towards socialization as a key factor in children’s gender development. Ely, Gleason, and McCabe (1996), employing quantitative methods, found a significant gender difference in children’s speech: girls (as well as mothers) used more reported speech in

“Their Play Is Different”    7

their narratives than boys, which was at least in part (if not entirely) caused by parents asking girls more specific questions relating to reported speech. Examining a small portion of exclusively psychological literature in their review of previous work, the authors did not discuss power or children’s agency in the socialization process. Despite these theoretical gaps, some research has begun to move beyond the separate worlds hypothesis (Whiting & Edwards, 1988) and assumptions of difference towards a more critical and fluid interpretation of gender construction in young children. Kyratzis (2001) outlined a theoretical approach that takes the issues I have raised into account. Although more empirically oriented studies that cite Kyratzis (e.g., Nakamura, 2001) have not taken these issues into account, a notable exception is Goodwin’s (2001) examination of fluid and changing gender roles and dominance in elementary school children’s negotiation of play. In this study, Goodwin (2001) used a longitudinal ethnographic approach to show that male and female children, from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, shifted in their negotiation of gender as all children became more skilled at the game of jump rope. This study begins to capture some of the complexities of gender performance among young children, and the present study builds upon Goodwin’s work. As I have shown in this literature review, research in the past couple of decades has mainly found gender stereotyping and bias in adults’ socialization of children, both in home and school settings. These studies only answer part of the gender socialization question, however, and only for a subset of the population. Relying almost entirely on white, middle-class participants, researchers have unintentionally avoided the issue of how gender intersects with race, culture, and class in young children’s gender socialization. Additionally, most likely because these children come from privileged backgrounds, there is little critical examination of power relationships, diversity in gendered performance, or expressions of resistance among these preschool-aged children. The assumption in much of this work is that gender is solely a white female issue. My work is, in part, a beginning attempt to fill this gap in a theoretical sense, although my study is also focused on privileged white participants. A Gap in the Research: Power, Diversity, and Resistance in Waldorf Gender Socialization As I have shown above, there is a significant research gap in several important areas: no researchers have examined power relationships in Waldorf schools in general, and in particular researchers have avoided conducting studies of gender construction in the context of power in Waldorf schools. Moreover, the current literature that deals with Waldorf schools in particu-

8    M. A. F. WILSON

lar is mostly a superficial examination of practices and theory that does not delve below the surface to examine how these explicitly formulated Waldorf theories and practices have unintended consequences in reproducing power relations within interactions, particularly where gender is concerned. Additionally, as the current preschool gender socialization literature shows, there is a gap in researchers’ attention to the socially constructed nature of gender and how socialization is much more than a one-way street. This gap exists in part because critical theorists are in general more concerned with historically disadvantaged populations, where the issues of power are more salient and socio-politically relevant. Waldorf schools, on the other hand, tend to serve more privileged populations, and so the workings of power become more invisible. My study begins to fill in that gap, since it is important to examine these issues in all contexts to gain a complete understanding of the workings of power in society, particularly in hierarchical and authoritarian Waldorf contexts (Wilson, 2008). A Non-Neutral Theoretical and Methodological Stance: Critical Poststructuralist Feminism My theoretical and methodological stance for this analysis comes from the tradition of critical discourse analysis (CDA), which places power relationships and the discursive reproduction (and contestation) of ideology at the center of analysis. This means that critical discourse analysts view language to be the primary means through which power and ideology are transmitted, negotiated, and contested. CDA researchers look at close textual analysis (of both spoken and written discourse) to elucidate the power relations and historically constituted ideologies at work both within and outside of the text (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997), combining micro and macro levels of analysis in a thick explanation (Watson-Gegeo, 1992) of text and context. Critical discourse analysts attempt to elucidate the macro ideological and power processes through micro textual analysis, and vice versa, since these researchers see language and social life as existing in a dialectical, mutually constitutive relationship (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997). Fairclough and Wodak highlight the importance of this micro–macro connection in terms of power relationships by affirming that “it is fruitful to look at both ‘power in discourse’ and ‘power over discourse’ in these dynamic terms: both the exercise of power in the ‘here and now’ of specific discursive events, and the longer-term shaping of discursive practices and orders of discourse, are generally negotiated and contested processes” (1997, p. 273). In this way, as the authors demonstrate, it is important for the critical discourse analyst to examine both the ways in which speakers exert and negotiate power within specific interactions, and how this power is conceptualized on a more mac-

“Their Play Is Different”    9

ro level beyond this specific interaction. Since gender is often constructed in asymmetrical relations of power, this perspective is necessary for any examination of gender construction and socialization. I am framing my own work as critical because my main emphasis is on the unequal power relations that work to construct gender roles, specifically the asymmetric power relation between adults and children that lead adults to attempt to socialize children into specific, rigidly defined traditional ways of being female or male. My interest is in helping to emancipate both the children and the adults from these expectations, and in showing that alternative understandings of gender are possible and make sense when one critically examines the diverse ways in which children can and do perform gender. In this chapter, I explore two sides of the same gender discourse issue in a Waldorf context: how the adults structure activities and discourse in order to reinforce traditional gender norms, and how the children respond either by appropriating or resisting these discourses. In addition to coming from a critical discourse analysis standpoint in my analysis of the data, I also explicitly and non-objectively come from a standpoint of feminist poststructuralist theory, as outlined in Weedon (1997) and Butler (1990). Feminist poststructuralism posits that the social construction of gender, and indeed its performance (Butler, 1990), is a reflection of fluid, dynamic, and multiple changing identities, influenced by the relations of power in which the subject finds herself or himself (Norton, 1995). Gender is no longer seen as a trait of an individual, but rather what individuals do within the constraints of their particular social context, which change across time and space. I have found it useful to keep this feminist poststructuralist view of gender in mind in examining my data because it alerted me to the many ways of being female and male in the children’s behaviors, rather than constraining my thinking to “typical” girl and boy behaviors. Statement of Focus In my ethnographic study of Shining Star Daycare (Wilson, 2008), I found that the discourse common in the site reproduced mainstream classroom discourse rather than resisting or transforming it. Therefore, I expected that the discourse in the current site would similarly reproduce traditional gender identities and roles rather than resisting them. My understanding of reproduction stems from Bourdieu and Passeron’s (1977) analysis of social reproduction in educational systems, in which schools are intentionally constructed as sites of socializing children into status quo societal norms and practices rather than resisting or changing them. By traditional gender roles, I mean that girls and boys would be expected to exhibit different

10    M. A. F. WILSON

behavioral tendencies based on behaviors or traits that index gender, such as fragility, daintiness, quietness, and relational-oriented behavior for girls, and strength, loud talk, dominance, and individualistic-oriented behavior for boys (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2003). The research questions that guided my inquiry are as follows: 1. What is the process of discursive construction of gender in the site? 2. Are the gender roles promoted in the site reproductive of traditional gender roles, resistant to them, or both? 3. How do adults (and children) promote specific gender roles in their discursive interactions with the children? 4. What is the children’s response to incidents of gender socialization? Is there evidence of children’s agency in the construction of alternative gender roles? Data Collection The data for this study come from a larger ethnographic study of power, language socialization processes, and epistemologies of child development at Shining Star Daycare (Wilson, 2008). The ethnographic data collection consisted of participant observation, interviews with the two teachers in the site, and examination of documents obtained from the site. Through these three sources of data, I was able to triangulate my understanding of what was occurring in the site. Data collection lasted nine months, from October 2006 to June 2007. Participant Observation I visited the site 22 times over this nine-month period, staying for between an hour and two hours each time. I took raw field notes while I was there, jotting down words and actions, and wrote up full expanded notes when I got home that day. My field notes became more and more focused as I refined my topic, and towards the end they were mainly focused on power, child development epistemologies, gendered discourse, and children’s expressions of agency. I became a partial participant in the site, constrained by the fact that the teachers encouraged me to take a hands-off approach with the children, which is why I was not able to interview any of the children. In addition, I was able to audio record several of the classroom interactions, which provided me with more information on the verbatim language use in the site. Interviews I conducted one unstructured interview with both of the teachers, Rachel and Caitlin, which provided a wealth of information about Waldorf

“Their Play Is Different”    11

epistemology, their understanding of their practices, and their constructions of childhood, and, to a lesser extent, their views on gender. I was careful to leave the questions open and provided room for the participants to talk about whatever they wanted to, which was important because issues arose that would not have if I had kept the questions very specific. There were a few important kernels of information in the interview indexing gender, which I was able to use for this study, but since the interview was done before I started the inquiry into gender construction, there were no questions specifically on gender. Documents Throughout the course of the study, Rachel, the main teacher, gave me documents and books on the Waldorf approach, which were instrumental in my developing understanding of her practice and Waldorf in general. Again, there was not anything specific on gender, so the documents were important in terms of constructing an understanding the context within which the gender issues emerged. Data Analysis Data analysis was achieved through qualitative coding of field notes and interview. After having closely transcribed the interview and expanded all of my raw field notes into full narrative form, I began some exploratory coding of the data, reading through the expanded notes/interview transcript and highlighting sections of the notes that related to the salient themes. Coding of gender-related data followed the same process as the rest of the coding, and I ended up with the main codes of (a) adults’ stereotyped gender views, (b) children’s resistance to gendering, and (c) children’s appropriation of gendering. I was careful to include counterexamples for each emergent theme, where I could find them, incorporating Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) constant comparative method into my analysis by constantly checking my concepts against any counterexamples that may point to alternative interpretations. In addition, a focus of my analysis was to connect the micro construction of gender identity to larger issues of gender at the site and in Waldorf education as a whole, in accordance with Watson-Gegeo’s (1992) concept of thick explanation. Findings I began this inquiry interested in whether the process of discursive construction of gender was reproductive of traditional gender roles; the data

12    M. A. F. WILSON

illustrate that the teachers in this Waldorf setting both express alignment with traditional gender stereotypes and reinforce these stereotypes in their interactions with the children. This finding fits within the larger finding that adult–child interactions in the site reproduce mainstream classroom discourse (Wilson, 2008), as well as replicating the previous studies on gender socialization in mainstream early childhood settings (particularly Chick, Heilman-Houser, & Hunter, 2002; Denham, Zoller, & Couchoud, 1994; Reese, Haden, & Fivush, 1996). In the next sections, I discuss the findings in detail, first focusing on the adults’ views and practices, then shifting my attention to the various ways in which children respond to the adults’ socialization efforts. Girls Are “More Social,” Boys Have “More Energy”: Teachers’ Dichotomous Gender Stereotypes in Theory and Practice As the title of this section illustrates, Rachel, the Shining Star main teacher, expressed an explicit alignment with the traditional discourse surrounding gender differences discussed extensively in the literature (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2003). This traditional discourse is based on the dichotomous premise that women/girls are more relational (they are more social) than men/boys, who are more individualistic and competitive (they have more energy) (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2003). Rachel expressed this dichotomized view to me one day while I was observing (Field notes, 4.30.07), in the context of her ongoing explanation of Joseph’s problematic behavior (see “The special case of Joseph,” later in this chapter). While she also explained Joseph’s behavior in terms of neural pathology, her fundamental explanation was rooted in his gender as the only male child in the class. From interviews and observations of the teachers’ interactions with the children, I observed that both teachers’ (Rachel’s and Caitlin’s) views of girls and boys were dichotomous. These views profoundly affected the differential ways in which they interacted with boys and girls in the classroom. Indeed, on the first day I observed the daycare, the class was made up of a small group of girls, and Rachel made a side comment to me that “the dynamic is different” when there are boys and/or a larger group there (Field notes, 10.13.06, 68–70). Furthermore, the environment of the daycare, as previously mentioned, was female-dominated, and throughout my observations I only observed one boy at the site at any given time. I can only speculate as to why this is the case: perhaps because of Waldorf’s emphasis on protecting childhood, parents with female children are more likely to enroll them in this type of education because they assume, as mainstream Western society does, that girls need more protection than boys. More research in

“Their Play Is Different”    13

different Waldorf settings, including interviews with parents, is necessary to validate this claim. Despite these gendered expectations, many of the teachers’ expectations were actually the same for all children: girls and boys alike were expected to be respectful of adults and of each other, compassionate, helpful and cooperative, neat and tidy, silent during breakfast and when the teachers were talking, calm, gentle, and polite (Interview, 1.22.07; Field notes, 11.13.06, 12.4.06, 1.8.07, 2.16.07). All children were expected to behave in accordance with Steiner’s rigid model of child development, which generally does not differentiate between girls and boys. However, from an examination of when and how these expectations were enforced, there was a clear differential enforcement depending on the child’s gender. Girls were more often told to be quiet during meals, were expected to be more helpful and attentive to one another and gentle with the environment around them. Paradoxically, although girls were expected to conform more to these traits that indirectly index traditional female gender roles (Ochs, 1991), boys were disciplined more strictly than girls and were expected to be more obedient and more tough when they got hurt, as evidenced by the teachers’ interactions with the children (Field notes, 4.30.07, 11.6.06). Thus, the boys, like the girls, were expected to conform to behaviors consistent with the larger culture’s dichotomous construction of gender. Far from being solely a result of the teachers’ own views on gender, the Waldorf approach in itself reifies and dichotomizes gender in a traditionally stereotypical way. Examining the beginning of Steiner’s second stage of childhood, Blunt (1995) explained the dichotomous understanding of gender in the Waldorf model: The natural tendency for boys to withdraw at this age [6 or 7] is a particular expression of their developing freedom, just as, in a different way, girls want to be more extroverted. The teacher must show that he understands and accepts these private feelings, and in lessons he must differentiate between the sexes. (Blunt, 1995, p. 83)

In this passage, Blunt makes a problematic distinction between girls and boys by ascribing more developing freedom to boys, and describing girls as more extroverted (or more social in Rachel’s words). Encouraging the teacher to differentiate between the sexes ultimately reifies the dichotomous conception that does not treat girls and boys equally. Furthermore, the teacher in this passage is assumed to be male, giving evidence of sexist language that is also prevalent in Steiner’s writings and Waldorf teachers’ writings today (Edmunds, 2004). In practice, many of the materials Rachel used in the classroom, which came mostly from other Waldorf educators, indexed traditional assumptions about gender roles. Many of the nursery rhymes and fairy tales told

14    M. A. F. WILSON

in circle time reproduced the idea of women as domestic workers whose main goal was to care for and nurture children, or for girls to remain in passive princess roles (Field notes, 1.8.07). Teacher talk about the seasons and nature is likewise gendered in Waldorf discourse: I heard talk of Mother Earth, Father Sun, and Brother Wind (I never heard of a Sister metaphor). Waldorf materials likewise reinforced heteronormativity and the normalization of middle-class nuclear families, as I will show later in this chapter. These differential expectations for boys and girls, coming from both the teachers’ personal views and from the Waldorf epistemology itself, played out in daily interactions between the teachers and children. As mentioned above, boys were often disciplined more than girls, and the discipline was more focused on physical issues, such as hitting, not sitting properly, or making noise, but teachers also sometimes addressed verbal issues such as talking out of turn. Disciplining is meant in a broad sense here, since the teachers never physically disciplined children, and time-outs (making a child sit in a chair away from the other children) were relatively uncommon, although they did occur more for boys than girls. The majority of discipline was verbal in nature, taking the form of verbal reprimands or indirect/direct directives aimed at modeling correct behavior, but nevertheless sometimes invoking a great deal of shame in the child. Another way in which the teachers’ approach differed between girls and boys was in how they approached girls in need of special protection, both from other children and from influences in the outside world (particularly media). I observed many instances such as the following, when a teacher intervened on behalf of a female child, protecting her from the actions of a male child (protecting female children from one another was much less common): Caitlin comes rushing over to where Emily is and asks the other children, “what happened?” and Sallie points to John and says, “He hit her.” Caitlin turns to John, picking up a wooden iron and saying, “these items are not for hitting the children.” She repeats this sentence two or three times. Then she tells him, “You may sit up here” (on the steps), but Rachel says that he should be completely away from the other children. (Field notes, 10.30.06, 451–456)

Although this tactic of protecting girls from the physical violence perpetrated by boys could initially be interpreted as an empowering feminist practice, it is rooted in the problematic assumption that girls, even more than children in general, are incapable of taking care of (and standing up for) themselves. The Waldorf approach is based on a premise that children need to be protected from various threats coming from modern mainstream American culture, including but not limited to media, an overly busy culture, and

“Their Play Is Different”    15

a push for children to develop faster, but this protective approach seems to be particularly directed at girls. In the following interview excerpt I had asked about her strategy for dealing with children bringing in things from the outside world that are not appropriate; in response, Rachel discusses what she sees as a particularly problematic way in which the media influences girls, who are positioned as more vulnerable and impressionable:



R: and then attitude ((clears throat)) um well it— uh I— see it with some uh— there’s some song from I think it’s from ((tongue click)) I don’t know some Disney movmie movie um and you can see how ((laughing)) inappropriate it is some of the of the movies that are supposedly    geared for children are for little children it’s, it’s really adult humor a lot of the times and they’re singing some song about I, I like to move it move it and it’s real it’s a real jivey kinda song and these are three and four year old girls doin this kinda M: mhm R: stuff and um I s— I said um I just say no we’ll just you can sing that somewhere else because it gets them all going into this kinda thing that’s way out there and and also then they kinda lose focus on their play. (Interview, 1.22.07)

In this excerpt, Rachel articulates the danger she sees in girls appropriating practices and values from the mainstream culture that are “way out there,” far removed from Waldorf practice and from the ways in which girls should be developing according to the approach. Rachel claims that attention to media makes girls “lose focus on their play,” which is an adultcentered interpretation of what is healthiest for children to be doing (and also what constitutes play in the first place). Although I do not disagree with Rachel that media influence can be potentially damaging to children, boys and girls alike, this attitude becomes problematic when the entire culture becomes problematized, as Rachel states a few lines later: “you know, it’s their culture, and they, they’ll have to deal with their culture” at some point, but at this point it is the adult’s responsibility to protect them (Interview, 1.22.07). Girls seem to be particularly subjected to this strict control of what can potentially be brought into the classroom from their lives outside school, and Rachel’s comments imply the need to strictly control girls’ developing sexuality. Ironically, although the teachers make strong efforts

16    M. A. F. WILSON

to counteract the various societal influences on children’s lives, they ultimately reinforce many of society’s ideas about what constitutes appropriate gendered behavior. Having examined the ways in which the Waldorf approach and the teachers’ practices reinforce traditional gender roles in many different ways, I will now turn to an examination of adult assumptions of Waldorf teachers being female and how this relates to Waldorf assumptions about the role of adults in children’s lives. I will then turn to an examination of responses to problematic boy behavior and the construction of heteronormativity to conclude the section on adult views. The “Mother Knows Best” Approach: Connecting Adult Power and Gendered Language One of the most salient ideas that emerged from my interview with Rachel and Caitlin, and one that I have explored in depth elsewhere (Wilson, 2008), is that the teacher, like the parent at home, should be a strong central figure in the lives of children, providing strict structure so that children, already overwhelmed with the rapid pace and sensory overstimulation of their culture, do not have to make what Waldorf teachers see as unnecessary choices (Interview, 1.22.07). This understanding of children as incapable of making decisions about their own lives serves to legitimize the asymmetrical power relationship between adults and children at the site. Interestingly, though, this idea has an important gendered component as well, as evidenced by the following interview excerpt, in which Rachel responds to a question I posed about whether, in the Waldorf model, there is a prescribed way of talking to children:



R: um but you DO want the the teacher really needs to kind of ho:ld the center um and be be the main the main person that they can gather around often in a BIGger setting in a kindergarten there’s usually a rocking chair that the teacher can sit in and maybe knit while the children are playing or M: mhm R: work on some project um so that there’s this like the mother at—or father at home um

“Their Play Is Different”    17



there ARE male Waldorf kindergarten teachers too so i have to be careful with ((laughs)) M: ((laughs))

In this excerpt, in addition to expressing her views on the ideal power relationship between adults and children, Rachel reveals, in a passing comment (i.e., “There are male Waldorf kindergarten teachers too”) that the norm is for Waldorf teachers to be female, and that this is acceptable or ideal, since women are, in this view, more suited to childrearing than men. Indeed, the ideal Waldorf teacher role is permeated with practices that indirectly index femininity (Ochs, 1991): knitting (as in the excerpt above), speaking softly and gently, and creating a warm, nurturing, womb-like environment for the children. The physical environment of Shining Star is also very stereotypically feminine, with pink flowing curtains and pastel colors. Not surprisingly, Rachel also makes an explicit link between mothering at home and childcare at school—the ideal (female) Waldorf teacher is like the mother at . . . home, who likewise should take an authoritative control over their children’s routine. This privileging of female maternal authority in the classroom is what I call the mother knows best discourse, a matriarchal adaptation of Ochs and Taylor’s (1996) examination of the “father knows best” dynamic in middle-class family dinnertime narratives. This discourse captures how adult authority is privileged specifically in a way that reinforces traditionally stereotypical ways of performing femininity. I will return for a moment to one of the practices I mentioned above— the manner in which adults speak to children. Although both Rachel and Caitlin spoke softly and gently to the children (and through my own socialization into the site I had to modify the volume of my voice), they also emphasized the importance of “pronounc[ing] everything very clearly and really enunciat[ing]” (Rachel, Interview, 1.22.07). The teachers did make an effort to enunciate clearly, and this strategy was combined, mostly on Caitlin’s part, with a higher-pitched, sing-song type of intonation characteristic of childdirected speech (interestingly, child-directed speech was formerly called motherese), and this type of speech is often indexical of femininity (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2003, p. 180). Interestingly, too, Caitlin’s speech style was characteristic of the ultra-feminine way of speaking referenced by Lakoff (1975), including indirection, diminutives, euphemisms, and conventional politeness. This speech style contributed to the conventionally feminine, nurturing feel of the daycare environment.

18    M. A. F. WILSON

The Special Case of Joseph: Adult Responses to Problematic “Boy” Behavior Over the course of my nine months at Shining Star, I had the opportunity to observe two different male children: John in the fall and Joseph in the spring. Both John and Joseph, as explained earlier, were targeted more than the girls for inappropriate behavior, particularly physical behavior, and as a result were subjected to more direct directives than the girls. Although the boys generally did engage in more physical misbehavior than the girls, my point is that the adults’ responses disproportionately problematized the boys’ behavior, even when taking into account the boys’ greater tendency to create disruptions. The teachers’ differential responses could well be a contributing factor to the boys’ misbehavior, although the teachers, constructing gender (and misbehavior) as purely biological, are probably not conscious of this possibility. The following excerpt illustrates a very typical way in which Rachel and Caitlin responded to Joseph’s behavior, often problematizing a single, small instance of misbehavior in a repeated struggle for control: Joseph is the last child waiting to wash hands. He gets up and runs towards the water bowl, but Rachel tells him to sit down again. “I didn’t call Joseph yet,” she says, matter-of-factly. Joseph whines, “why?” and Rachel responds, “because he’s not ready yet.” [T.N. Use of third person here is really distancing. Also, adult assuming that child is not ready, also holding him to a vague standard that he probably doesn’t understand because she doesn’t articulate it.] Joseph goes back to the stump where he was sitting before and sits down, and Rachel tells Sallie to wash her hands. While Sallie is washing her hands, Joseph jumps up again and rushes over to the bowl of water. Rachel tells him to sit down again, saying “I know it’s hard, but you have to wait.” Then she calls him over by singing, “good morning to Joseph, and sweet be thy day . . .” and he gets up to wash his hands. (Field notes, 4.30.07, 3418–3431)

On this particular day, during which I observed for an hour and a quarter, I recorded 16 instances, like the one above, of adults problematizing Joseph’s behavior in some way, either to him directly (most often), to me, or to each other (Field notes, 4.30.07). Joseph was being socialized, more than the other children, into traditional classroom values such as turn-taking, listening to the teacher, and patiently waiting until one is called. At one point in my field notes I wrote: “[T.N. all of the interactions between Joseph and both teachers have been aimed at trying to modify his behavior through directives.]” (Field notes, 5.7.07, 3899–3901).2 This is not to say that Joseph’s behavior was not problematic; from a traditional schooling perspective, it often was. I applaud both Rachel and Caitlin for their patience and compassion in dealing with the many inter-

“Their Play Is Different”    19

ruptions and expressions of resistance that Joseph routinely displayed. However, instead of reflecting on how their own practice may be singling him out and creating a behavioral stigma that may in turn be reinforcing his misbehavior, they turned to neurological, maturational discourses to explain away his resistance: Rachel comes over to me and sits down next to me, launching into an explanation of how Joseph (who is sitting at the table and looks over at us, clearly hearing what Rachel is saying) has been diagnosed with “sensory problems,” and this makes it so that he is always seeking sensory input. She tells me that he has been seeing an occupational therapist, so that he is getting lots of sensory input there, and speculates that it may help. Standing up and walking over to the middle of the room, where she occupies herself with the rest area again, she tells me that it is important to “address” this problem now, because if not, then he will have big problems when he gets to school. She adds this with a knowing “you know,” implying that I know exactly what she is talking about. (Field notes, 5.7.07, 3911–3922)

In this exchange, Rachel problematizes Joseph’s behavior to me, within earshot of Joseph himself, and she explains it in terms of neurological, sensory problems with which he has been diagnosed. In this way, she discursively transforms Joseph from an active agent into a problematic, deficient, and pathologized helpless child in need of remedial help from teachers and other adults. Interestingly, Rachel makes an explicit connection between addressing the problem now and socializing Joseph into appropriate school behavior. In this way, Rachel rids herself of any responsibility for helping to construct Joseph as a problematic child, opting instead to explain his behavior in terms of neural pathology, which is consistent with current Waldorf discourse. It is a short step from this argument to making the case that boys in general are inherently more problematic and neurologically deficient. Significantly, it was in the context of explaining Joseph’s behavior to me that Rachel made her gendered statement about girls being more social and boys having more [problematic] energy (Field notes, 4.30.07, 3349–3350, my insertion). The Construction of Heteronormativity and Privileging of Traditional Middle-Class Nuclear Families Another way in which discourse at the site and Waldorf discourse in general tend to reinforce traditional gender roles is in the privileging of the heterosexual, middle-class nuclear family. Many of the finger games and circle activities reinforced heteronormativity and the nuclear family, as in

20    M. A. F. WILSON

the case of one finger game, in which the teacher counts off each finger and gives it a kinship name: When we are all seated at the table, with Rachel at the head of the table as usual, she does a finger game, one that is new to me. She counts off each of her fingers by naming them each with a kinship name. She starts with the thumb, “this is the father, short and stout” [T.N. father first—privileging of male/traditional gender roles], next the pointer finger, which is the mother, who is tall, with three children. The first is the brother (middle finger) who is also “tall” [I’m surprised that Rachel confidently sticks up her middle finger at the children!], then the sister, the ring finger, who is holding a doll [T.N. again, traditional gender roles], and finally the baby (the pinky) who “still has to grow.” [T.N. recognition of developmental stages here]

Indeed, as is clear from my theoretical notes (T.N.) throughout the passage, the finger game reinforces a patriarchal nuclear family, with one father, one mother, one brother, one sister, and one genderless baby. The father is mentioned first, privileging his status in the family, while the sister is presented next to last, already having been socialized into taking care of children as symbolized by holding a doll. Also, the mother is presented in closer proximity to the children than the father, showing that she is the primary caregiver in the family. This arrangement is supported by Rachel’s comment in the interview, “like the mother at—or father at home” (Interview, 1.22.07) that assumes the mother’s primary caregiving responsibility, and tacks on the father’s role as an afterthought. In addition to transmitting these ideas about traditional family and gender roles to the children through games, Rachel also reinforced these ideas in her more informal interactions with the children, particularly the girls. In an interaction that reinforces the role of the mother as the primary cook in the family, Rachel socializes Annika, a four-year-old girl, into this norm: Meanwhile, at the table on my right, Annika and Rachel are still chopping vegetables. Annika whines, “I’m getting tired,” and Rachel responds that “yes, it’s hard work to chop vegetables for vegetable soup.” [T.N. she seems to be acknowledging Annika’s tiredness but not her seeming unwillingness to continue with the task.] [. . .] Rachel further responds to Annika’s previous complaint by observing, “don’t mommies work so hard when they have to make food?” and Annika doesn’t say anything until about a minute later when she repeats what Rachel said but in a statement: “mommies work hard when they make food.” (Field notes, 10.30.2006, 320–332)

In this example of gender role socialization, Annika appropriates Rachel’s statement that implies that the primary cook in the family is female, and that this role is characterized by (necessary) hard work and sacrifice. Positioning Annika as a future “mommy” in a nuclear, heteronormative family,

“Their Play Is Different”    21

Rachel provides Annika with a powerful motivation to continue working even though she doesn’t want to: Rachel’s message is that in order for a woman to be successful in her primary roles of wife and mother, she must get accustomed to working hard to provide for her family, even when this work is uncomfortable or even painful. Annika is receptive to this idea, probably in part because it resonates with her own family experience, in which her mother is the primary cook and caregiver and works hard to provide for her family, while her father is mainly absent. I wonder, though, what the effect of this socialization effort would be on a child who comes from a less traditional family structure, or if such a child would even be enrolled in a Waldorf school in the first place. Children’s Responses to Gender Socialization Efforts: Appropriation and Resistance As I have shown, adults at Shining Star promoted traditional gender and family roles, and children responded to these socialization efforts in various ways, ranging from complete acceptance and appropriation (as in the case of Annika above), to complete resistance and rejection (as in the case of Christine, below). Sometimes children accepted these traditional roles, which was sometimes evident in their play (e.g., playing house) and in the assumptions they made about other people’s family structure (at one point I was talking about my mother and brother, and Gena asked me, “Do you have a father?”—Field notes, 1.12.07). Equally, though, the children resisted these traditional roles, which also became evident in their play. In the following sections, I will first examine the ways in which children appropriated these gender stereotypes and roles, highlighting the cases of Sallie and Amber, the model good girls, and then turning to an examination of children’s resistance to gendered discourse. I observed that the children expressed many ways of being feminine or masculine, but only a rigid set of gender performances was accepted and reinforced by the teachers. Children’s Appropriation of Adult Gender Stereotypes In addition to the case of Annika examined above, there were many other instances of children appropriating gender stereotypes from the adults in the site or from society. This previous example was the most clear instance of a girl appropriating an adult’s views on female gender roles, but I also witnessed multiple instances of girls engaged in creating alliances and groupings among themselves, something that Rachel interpreted as being typical girl behavior (Field notes, 11.3.07). Rachel told me that “the girls who are

22    M. A. F. WILSON

almost five are doing this thing where they like to trade clothes,” and that “you never see boys doing that, because with girls it’s more social, there’s that (social) connection that isn’t there for boys” (Field notes, 4.30.07, 3598–3603—quotes are my paraphrasing rather than direct quotes). In these instances, girls at the site engaged in behaviors that Rachel, along with the wider society, saw as healthy behaviors typical for girls and not for boys. It is difficult to tell where these behaviors are coming from, whether it is from the teachers at the site, parents or siblings at home, television, or other aspects of U.S. society. But the way in which Rachel reinforces these behaviors by making comments to me about them and implying that they are cute and healthy must be a contributing factor to their persistence. I will now turn to a discussion of two girls at the site, Sallie and Amber, who exemplify an appropriation of the gendered expectations placed on them by society. Sallie and Amber: Model “Good Girls” Although their behavior and motivations are clearly just as complex as any other child’s, both Sallie and Amber, both five-year-old girls at the time of the study, more than any of the other children, consistently exemplified the good girl stereotype that is often reinforced in mainstream schools and society. Close friends and almost inseparable at daycare, Sallie and Amber exhibited model good girl behavior: silent, compliant, gentle, helpful, neat, and polite. Rachel, in explaining how new children are socialized into the site, cited Sallie and Amber as models for new children to follow because “they [Sallie and Amber] know the rhythm so well, it’s so part of them that they’ll just carry a new child right along and help them out even more than the teacher” (Rachel, Interview, 1.22.07). In this way, Rachel discursively constructs these two girls as model students who socialize new children, implying that she as a teacher has less authority than the girls, which is clearly not the case. Sallie in particular exhibited the good girl stereotype in a linguistic way: her voice was so quiet that it could barely be heard even when the rest of the room is silent, let alone when other children/teachers were speaking. This led to her often being overlooked or not heard when she was requesting something. Amber, too, spoke in a quiet voice, although not as quiet as Sallie. Rachel, too, recognized this quality of Amber’s speech: at one point, when Amber was requesting something of Rachel from the bathroom, Rachel responded that she should come out to talk because “we can’t hear your little voice in there” (Field notes, 11.27.07, 1658–1660). The image of a little voice symbolizes Amber’s lack of voice and power in the setting. This is not to say, however, that Sallie and Amber do not exert agency in the setting. Indeed, while their silence can be interpreted as compliance, it can also be interpreted as resistance, a refusal to participate in the linguis-

“Their Play Is Different”    23

tic activities of the setting. I also occasionally observed Sallie and Amber playing or whispering together when the teacher was talking or when they were supposed to be resting, and this disobedience often was overlooked or unheard in a way that Joseph’s or even other girls’ disobedience was not. Perhaps Sallie and Amber, since they had been at the daycare longer than any of the other children, besides having been socialized completely into what Rachel expected (“they know the rhythm so well”), had also developed ways of resisting that they knew would stay under the radar. With this introduction to resistance and agency, I will now turn to an examination of direct expressions of resistance that capture the children’s diversity of gender performance and how they challenged the strict gender order that the teachers enforced. Children’s Agency, Resistance, and Diversity of Gender Performance In addition to the ways in which Sallie and Amber indirectly resisted the teachers’ social positioning of them as model girls, other children more directly resisted the teachers’ social positioning of them. I have already shown how Joseph resisted and in some ways appropriated the bad boy label. The following two examples are more direct ways in which gender became salient in language and how children directly questioned the adults’ gendered assumptions. In the first example, Christine, a four-year-old girl who was one of the more outspoken and more androgynous children, directly questions the teacher Caitlin’s social positioning of her as a princess (moments of gender negotiation are in bold): In the playroom, Caitlin is on her knees playing with the children in there— Gena, John, Emily, and Christine. Amber is in the bathroom and has been since I came in. Caitlin is tying a silk cloth around John’s shoulders in the playroom, announcing “the night of the blue cape” (O.C. I misunderstood this—later I figured out that it was “knight” rather than “night). Christine moves towards the chest of drawers next to me, saying, “get me a tape [cape] too.” She opens the drawer, finds a silk cloth, and goes back to Caitlin, who is still tying the cloth around John’s shoulders. Then she turns to Christine and ties her silk around her shoulders, saying something about her being a “princess.” Christine protests, saying, “no, I have to try to be a man.” Caitlin renames her “knight Christine.” Christine repeats, “I have to try to be a man.” [. . .] In the play room, all of the children are getting silk cloths tied around their shoulders by Caitlin. Tying a silk around Sarah, Caitlin says, “oooh and here is princess Sarah.” [. . .] Then, back in the playroom, Caitlin says, holding a white silk, “let me tie this around the neck of our friend John, the knight of the white land.” One of the children says, “He can be pink and white.” At this point, Amber comes back from the bathroom, or the hallway, or wherever

24    M. A. F. WILSON she was. Caitlin sees Amber coming and says, “Here, look what I found for princess Amber.” [T.N. social positioning into a female gender role.] From the back of the playroom, hidden from view, I hear Gena’s voice: “my name isn’t Gena anymore, it’s Ayana Lee.” Hearing this from the kitchen, Rachel laughs. Gena then announces that her name is “Lianna.” Meanwhile, Caitlin is tying a yellow silk around Emily’s shoulders, and she says to her, “Emily, princess of the corn . . .  you can be princess of the harvest, ok?” Emily doesn’t say anything in response to this. (Field notes, 11.27, 1640–1681)

In this example, Caitlin repeatedly positions the girls into princess roles and the one boy, John, into a knight role, reinforcing traditional gender stereotypes. Christine, however, is not content to be positioned as a princess, and she clearly states, “No, I have to try to be a man,” effectively reversing Caitlin’s positioning of her as a submissive female. Caitlin responds to the protest by repositioning Christine as a male knight, but when it comes to the other children—Amber and Emily—she does not change her positioning of them. This is a particularly interesting example because it is a clear illustration of Butler’s (1990) concept of performativity, since the children are literally putting on costumes and performing as other people, and in some cases, other genders. Caitlin’s response momentarily accommodates this diversity of gender performance, but ultimately her social positioning of the children does not undergo any transformation. Annika, whom we met earlier as she was engaged in appropriating gender stereotypes into her own belief system, also exerted agency in the face of gender positioning, showing the diversity of responses with which children approached gendered experiences. In the following example, Annika directly questions Rachel’s gendering of colors during a painting activity: The children pick up the brushes and begin to make red strokes on the wet paper. Rachel stands next to them, watching them, and says, “Bold, big, strong red likes to dance across the page.” Annika says, “Who?” and Rachel responds that “Mr. Red is so strong today.” Annika says, “We thought you were Mrs. Red.” Rachel quickly says, “Or Mrs. Red, maybe both.” (Field notes, 2.16.07, 2816–2821)

In this example, Rachel assigns a male gender to the color red, associating strength with maleness. Annika, in a direct expression of agency, resists this positioning and recasts red as being female, connecting strength with femaleness. Rachel does hear Annika’s protest and revises her statement, but does so by saying that they are both acceptable and does not rescind her previous statement. The previous two examples show that although both male and female children in the site tended to cooperate with and appropriate stereotypical gender roles and positioning, occasionally their direct

“Their Play Is Different”    25

expressions of resistance and agency exemplified the diversity in gender performance even, or especially, at such a young age. Conclusion My main research question guiding this study was: What is the process of discursive construction of gender in the site? In response to this question, the teachers did indeed, for the most part, privilege traditional gender stereotypes and norms, and this seems to be a characteristic of the Waldorf approach in general. This may in part be because of its roots in early 20th century Germany, with a male theorist as the main inspiration for the movement. However, it is important to understand whether these gendered practices come from the teachers’ individual beliefs rather than the Waldorf epistemology. Steiner is indeed mostly (but not entirely) silent on gender (and class, race, and culture), but Rachel takes a clear stance in her reinforcement of traditional gender stereotypes. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to tease out the various influences on Rachel’s gender epistemologies. Gender becomes salient in some of the interactions between adults and children in this site, but ultimately it is the rigid developmental stage theory, assumed to be applicable to all children, that places both boys and girls in a deficit model in the Waldorf approach. Furthermore, these traditional gender stereotypes, prevalent in the mainstream culture as well, were received with both appropriation and resistance on the part of the children. All of these processes occurred mainly through language, through directives, praise, criticism, questionings, and paralinguistic features such as intonation, gesture, and physical positioning. The gendered physical layout of the site and the structuring of activities also contributed to the reproduction of traditional gender stereotypes. Through this study, it has become clear that the process of gender construction and socialization in this Waldorf daycare is quite straightforward, given the vast amount of authority that teachers in this site have over the behaviors of children and the interpretation of these behaviors. However, far from being a matter of adults forcing children into stereotyped gender roles, we have seen that although the adults sometimes insist on these positionings, the children nevertheless exert a considerable amount of agency when they resist these traditional gendered discourses. Other times, however, as in the first example of Annika, children appropriate these discourses unquestioningly. It is important for the teachers in this site to critically examine their discourses on gender and consider the potential impact they are having on the children’s experiences. One challenging aspect of this inquiry was the fact that gender was so invisible in the site, at first glance. The (almost) all-female environment

26    M. A. F. WILSON

made it so that many of the teachers’ (and children’s) assumptions about gender remained unquestioned and unexamined, much in the same way as class, racial, and cultural privilege also remain invisible and unexamined in the Waldorf epistemology (Wilson, 2008). The scope of this inquiry has not allowed for an examination of the intersections of gender, class, race, and culture in this Waldorf setting, but it is clear that there are many ways in which these different factors mutually constitute one another. Further research could examine these intersections in a Waldorf setting, continuing to fill in the research gap in the Waldorf movement in general. As we begin to understand the workings of power and privilege with respect to gender construction in Waldorf and other elite settings, it will be possible to draw implications for understanding gender socialization power in mainstream classroom settings, and in wider society. Such awareness can provide opportunities for all teachers to critically examine their definitions of gender and how these definitions affect their students, hopefully moving toward definitions that are more fluid and honor the diversity of gendered experiences in students’ lives. Notes 1. All names, including those of the participants and the daycare, are pseudonyms to protect participant confidentiality. 2. In my method of writing field notes, M.N. refers to “methodological note” (what to do next in the research) and T.N. refers to “theoretical note” (how the observation relates to the emerging theory), as recommended in Carspecken (1996). The clear distinction between literal observations and methodological/theoretical notes is important, Carspecken argues, because it ensures that judgments, thoughts, and ideas on the part of the researcher remain separate from the observations obtained in the field.

References Barnes, H. (1980). An introduction to Waldorf education. Teachers College Record, 81, 323–336. Blunt, R. (1995). Waldorf education, theory and practice: A background to the educational thought of Rudolf Steiner. Cape Town, South Africa: Novalis Press. Borman, K. M. & O’Reilly, P. (1987). Learning gender roles in three urban U.S. kindergarten classrooms. Child and Youth Services, 8, 43–66. Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. London: Sage Publications. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.

“Their Play Is Different”    27 Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge. Chick, K. A., Heilman-Houser, R. A., & Hunter, M. W. (2002). The impact of child care on gender role development and gender stereotypes. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29, 149–154. Denham, S. A., Zoller, D., & Couchoud, E. A. (1994). Socialization of preschoolers’ emotion understanding. Developmental Psychology, 30, 928–936. Easton, F. (1997). Educating the whole child, “head, heart, and hands”: Learning from the Waldorf experience. Theory into Practice, 36, 87–94. Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Edmunds, F. (2004). An introduction to Steiner education: The Waldorf school. Forest Row, UK: Sophia Books. Eisner, E.W. (1994). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered. New York: Teachers College Press. Ely, R., Gleason, J. B., & McCabe, A. (1996). “Why didn’t you talk to your mommy, honey?”: Parents’ and children’s talk about talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29, 7–25. Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 258–284). London: Sage. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Goodwin, M. H. (2001). Organizing participation in cross-sex jump rope: Situating gender differences within longitudinal studies of activities. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34, 75–106. Henry, M. E. (1992). School rituals as educational contexts: Symbolizing the world, others, and self in Waldorf and college prep schools. Qualitative Studies in Education, 5, 295–309. Kyratzis, A. (2001). Children’s gender indexing in language: From the separate worlds hypothesis to considerations of culture, context, and power. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34, 1–13. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper and Row. Mays, R., & Nordwall, S. (2005). Frequently asked questions. Waldorf Answers website. Retrieved from http://waldorfanswers.org/WaldorfFAQ.htm#1 on April 29, 2008. McDermott, R. (Ed.). (1984). The essential Steiner: Basic writings of Rudolf Steiner. New York: Harper. Nakamura, K. (2001). Gender and language in Japanese preschool children. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34, 15–43. Nicholson, D. W. (2000). Layers of experience: Forms of representation in a Waldorf school classroom. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 575–587. Norton, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 9–31. Ochs, E. (1991). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context (pp. 335–358). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

28    M. A. F. WILSON Ochs, E. & Taylor, C. (1996). ‘The father knows best’ dynamic in family dinner narratives. In K. Hall (Ed.), Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self (pp. 97–121). New York: Routledge. Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Orion Press. Reese, E., Haden, C. A., & Fivush, R. (1996). Mothers, fathers, daughters, sons: Gender differences in autobiographical reminiscing. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29, 27–56. Rivers, I. & Soutter, A. (1996). Bullying and the Steiner school ethos: A case study analysis of a group-centered educational philosophy. School Psychology International, 17, 359–377. Sheldon, A. (1996). Constituting gender through talk in childhood: Conversations in parent–child, peer, and sibling relationships. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29, 1–5. Steiner, R. (1988). The child’s changing consciousness and Waldorf education. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press. Steiner, R. (1996). Rudolf Steiner in the Waldorf School: Lectures and addresses to children, parents, and teachers, 1919–1924. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press. Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1992). Thick explanation in the ethnographic study of child socialization: A longitudinal study of the problem of schooling for

Kwara’ae (Solomon Islands) children. New Directions for Child Development, 58, 51–66. Watson-Gegeo, K. A. & Gegeo, D. W. (1994). Keeping culture out of the classroom in rural Solomon Islands schools: A critical analysis. Educational Foundations, 8, 27–55. Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Whiting, B. B. & Edwards, C. P. (1988). Children of different worlds: The formation of social behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, M. A. (2008). “It’s not a democracy”: Adult power, privilege, and the normalization of one developmental epistemology in a Waldorf daycare. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of California, Davis.

Chapter 2

Girls and Boys, Work and Play Gendered Meanings and Participation in Early Childhood Education Sue Nichols

I’ll get your name and you have to write it down, not now. Come with me. —four-year-old girl playing teacher quoted in Miller & Smith, 2004, p. 130 What the teacher tells you to do even if you’re not interested. —child defining “work” in Briggs & Nichols, 2001, p. 20

When young children enter their first school classroom, most quickly learn that one of the most important activities taking place there is work. This special kind of work is different from what mom and/or dad do when they say they are going to work. School work is undertaken in a new social grouping, the class, and the formation of this collective is made possible through the activities of this specialized work (Kamler, Maclean, Reid, & Simpson, Gender and Early Learning Environments, pages 29–46 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

29

30    S. NICHOLS

1992). At the same time, play, which in the preschool years tends to be interwoven with daily activities in a fluid manner, is separated out and given its own time and space. Divisions between work and play become more starkly outlined. It has often been noted that girls and boys have different orientations to school (Huston & Carpenter, 1985; Myhill, 2002; Thorne, 1992). This conclusion has generally been based on teacher perceptions and researcher observations. Young children’s views are less often sought, but when they are, this impression is strengthened. An Australian study added weight to the view that experiences of school as a workplace are strongly associated with gender differences in children’s orientations to school right from the start (Briggs & Nichols, 2001). In a structured interview study that sought to understand children’s perspectives on their lives at home and at school, 311 children aged between 5 and 9 were asked how much they liked and disliked, and the “best” and “worst” things about, various contexts and activities. Girls, overall, were more positive about school than were boys. Differences were most striking at school entry (five years old) when all the girls surveyed stated they liked school “all the time” compared to less than half the boys. For children who disliked school, the experience of school as work was central to their criticisms. At age five, more than half the boys compared to less than a quarter of the girls volunteered that work was the “worst thing” about school. The interviewers probed children’s meanings by asking them, “What is work?” Some answers to this question were: “What the teacher tells you to do even if you’re not interested”; “What you have to do when you’d rather be doing something else”; “When she stops you from doing something you like doing and makes you do something you don’t want to do.” (Briggs & Nichols, 2001 p. 20) Thus, adult–child power relations were integral to children’s understanding of the distinction between work and other activities. Even before school, many children experience these power relations when adults (particularly mothers) introduce literacy-related or school-like activities (Solsken, 1992). The school activity termed work has changed little over many decades. More than 20 years prior to my current study, King found that children defined school work in the following terms: “listening to the teacher give directions; . . . listening to or participation in large group academic lessons during which teacher makes a didactic presentation; and . . . doing required, individual academic tasks” (1983, p. 68, quoted in Kamler et al., 1992, p. xx). Such work activities are central to a formal literacy curriculum, which is outcomes-oriented and reliant on explicit teacher direction.

Girls and Boys, Work and Play     31

Children’s play is generally considered to be spontaneous, imaginative, and child-initiated; in contrast, children’s work is imposed, structured, and adult-directed. When a progressive philosophy is ascendant in early education policy and practice, play assumes a privileged position as the key means by which children are considered to develop cognitive, emotional, and social competencies (Walkerdine, 1988). Absent this progressive philosophy, work becomes an inappropriate adult imposition on children. It has been argued that progressive pedagogies favor boys precisely because adult women’s power is backgrounded (Clark, 1990; Walkerdine, 1994). Under current accountability regimes, adult-directed formal learning is being strongly advocated, particularly in early literacy (Jeffrey, 2002). Some would argue that this swing of the pendulum is creating conditions that favor girls’ orientations to schooling. In reality, neither the progressive nor the conservative models have been able to gain complete hegemony. This is probably because the qualities of children that each promote (autonomous and self-regulating vs. compliant and well trained) are insufficient in themselves to provide a picture of the complete adult-to-be. As evidence of compromise, in the UK, Early Learning Goals—an outcomes-oriented policy document—was, as a response to pressure, supplemented in 2000 by a set of guidelines that reintroduced the idea of play-based learning (Miller & Smith, 2004). In this complex and shifting context, there is a need to understand how these reciprocally related domains of practice—work and play—impact young children as they adapt to the school environment. In this chapter, my particular interest is in how children accomplish gender identity formation within a context where the work/play relation is both central and in tension. I will argue that it is important to recognize children’s ability to bring work into play and play into work. Specifically, playing at school work is a key aspect of boys’ and girls’ differential preparation for, and participation in, the social relations of schooling. Mastery as Submission: Becoming a Worker in School The nexus of forces around adult and child agendas, pleasures, and forms of accountability is the terrain within which I herein will explore relationships between gender and early learning. My analysis draws upon Butler’s concept of performativity (Butler, 1990, 2004; Olsen & Wolsham, 2004), particularly as it has been applied by educational researchers (Davies, 2006; Hey, 2006; Renold, 2006). Butler (2004) defined performativity as “improvisation within a scene of constraint” (p. 1). This describes the work all social subjects do to produce meaningful identities. For example, children

32    S. NICHOLS

are producing their identities to make sense within the social context of school, a context within which adult–child and child–peer relationships are equally crucial. This way of understanding identity applies equally well to those experiences understood as play and to those understood as work. Viewing improvisation and constraint as integrally related results in a shift from binary views of the work–play relation, enabling one to see the improvisation in work and the constraint in play. Such a perspective cuts across polarized debates about the merits of adult-directed (work-oriented) and child-centred (play-based) pedagogies that inevitably reduce to power conflicts between adult and child agency. Butler (1997) wrote: “[P]ower is not simply what we oppose but also, in a strong sense, what we depend on for our existence and what we harbor and preserve in the beings that we are” (p. 2). Thus, both adults and children rely on the operations of power to provide social structures within which identity formation is at all possible. Butler (1995) wrote, “The more a practice is mastered, the more fully subjection is achieved. Submission and mastery take place simultaneously... and mastery as submission, is the condition of possibility for the subject itself” (pp. 45–46). The early years of school, perhaps more so than any other, are a time when behaviors are explicitly taught and practiced. The teacher’s objective, through explicit modeling and affording children repetitive practice, is for all children to adopt schooled subjectivities. Kamler and colleagues (1992) provided a vivid example in their study of the first month of school. For the first time ever, children were being trained to begin their seat work. The teacher handed each one a piece of paper and asked each child to hold their paper up. She demonstrated the wrong and right way to stand behind a chair. She directed them to stand behind their chairs, put their piece of paper on the table in front of the chair, pull out the chair and, finally, sit on it. The authors comment that this drilling is intended to downplay gender as central to children’s identities; they claimed that the ideal disciplined body for school is a gender-neutral body. However, children are practiced in many activities and already at school entry have mastered other skills. They bring the subjectivities they have achieved through mastery in these other arenas. Some of these subjectivities are closely related to children’s developing gender identities. In class, children run their social agendas simultaneously with the teacher’s educational agenda (Dyson, 1994; Nichols, 2004). King investigated views on play in the school context. She found children defined play at school as either what happened at recess time or “surreptitious talking and whispering to other children and other illicit behavior such as clowning around and silly laughing” (1983, p. 67, quoted in Kamler et al., 1993, p. 69). This indicates that children’s play goes on through and around teacher-directed work, both providing in different ways spaces for performing gendered identities.

Girls and Boys, Work and Play     33

My discussion from this point will progress through a consideration of three themes arising from my analyses of children’s activities in preschool and school settings. First, the notion of playing at school work is used to examine girls’ and boys’ differential preparation for the power relations of the classroom. Secondly, teacher surveillance of boy’s work will be discussed as integral to the operation of performativity in the early years classroom. Thirdly, the notion of giftedness is considered in terms of its impact on the framing of work and play with differential impacts on girls and boys. “I’ll Be the Teacher”: Girls’ Playful Preparation for School Work While play and work may be constructed as opposites in order to reinforce divisions between children and adults, when children play, they often play at work. One of the functions of children’s play is to enact imaginative identification with adult roles. Indeed, it is in this domain of children’s lives that gendered behavior has frequently been observed. Girls’ monopolization of the home corner is a familiar theme; playing the powerful and preferred role of mom entails the dramatic performance of work practices such as cooking, infant care, and event management (MacNaughton, 1995). Boys’ enactment of heroic identities in role play is often seen as the gendered opposite of these domestic scenarios. Some children’s attempts to cross gender boundaries and take up roles within the other storyline have also been observed (Jones & Brown, 2001). Being able to enact acceptable performances of work activities (whether domestic, vocational, or heroic) is a part of a child’s social competence as a play partner. One of the scenarios available for children to appropriate in their play is that of the school classroom. This is particularly salient for preschool children who are aware of their immanent entry into this important domain (Skattebol, 2006). From reviewing the literature on children’s play and from my own observations in preschool settings, I found a strong pattern of girls taking up the role of teacher in school-based play scenarios. For example, Dury (in Parke, Drury, Kenner, & Robertson, 2002) observed fouryear-old Samia in both nursery school and home and was able to affirm that her play scenarios at home had a close affinity to the pedagogical practices she experienced in her preschool setting. At home, Samia had her younger brother play the student role while she took on the teacher role. In a fascinating account of conflict in the kindergarten home corner, Jones and Brown (2001) described the attempts of two boys to enact a domestic scenario where one played the role of dad and the other of baby. Their play was soon entered by Shelby, who put in a bid to be the mom. When the boys resisted this move, she improvised the maternal strategy of

34    S. NICHOLS

bribing baby with a movie trip. Eventually this is successful in enticing the boys out of the home corner, but to prevent their return, Shelby then “gently pushes both boys onto the easy chairs [in the reading area of the kindergarten] and gives them each a book to read” (p. 718). The authors commented, “Shelby ensures complete obedience by taking on a ‘teacher’ role and thereby positioning boys within the discourse of schooling . . . where children are perceived as being powerless” (Jones & Brown, 2001, p. 720). Here we see how the roles of mom and teacher readily transmute from one to another. Within both the domestic and the classroom play scenarios, adult forms of power are enacted by girls; boys need considerable peer support and imaginative dexterity to sustain these roles just as girls face real challenges in sustaining heroic play roles. The following two examples provided by Miller and Smith (2004) are significant, not only just for their vividly described observations of children’s school-like play, but also for their commentary, which makes an argument against formal learning in the early years. Essential to this argument is seeing the children’s activities as free play and not as adult-imposed work. The first case involves two girls in a role- play situation in an area of the nursery school set up as an office. “Sabrina” approaches “Yohannah” and initiates an interaction as follows:

Sabrina: I’m going to do some writing today—not reading. I’ll get your name and you have to write it down, not now. Come with me. (She led the child to a table with magnetic names and a magnetic board.) Here are the letters, can you find your name—can you find Yohannah?

After Yohanna complies, Sabrina continues to give instruction:

Sabrina: Don’t use my book, I need to do my counting today. [. . .] OK what do you want to write then? (Miller & Smith, 2004, p. 130)

Miller and Smith commented that “Sabrina’s independent play was supported by literacy resources and she could practice her emerging writing skills without pressure to achieve an outcome” (p. 130). Regarding this episode as a play scenario emphasizes the child’s autonomy, consistent with a binary view of adult-imposed work and child-centered play. While they acknowledged that Sabrina was acting out the adult support model, they implied that adult power is absent from this interaction. This was made explicit when they then compared the episode with one in which an actual adult took the directive role and met with trenchant resistance from the (male) child. However, their view of a free unpressured child in a free play

Girls and Boys, Work and Play     35

context only holds if one ignores the experience of the unremarked girl, Yohanna. While Sabrina took a directive role, using language and mannerisms highly reminiscent of those used by teachers, Yohannah followed her direction, saying little. From Yohanna’s perspective, her role is the same regardless of whether a real or pretend adult is issuing directions. Both girls were achieving mastery as submission through the power relations inherent in the practice of school work. Their positions within subject relations, however, were different. Sabrina practiced moving between the directive adult (“Come with me”) and the autonomous child worker (“I need to do my counting today”) and, thus, could be seen as developing the kind of dual subjectivity that will serve her well in negotiating the shifting terrain of the classroom. Yohanna, on the other hand, took up neither the directive adult nor the independent child subject position; rather, she was the directed child necessary for Sabrina’s performance. On another occasion, perhaps their roles were reversed; no other examples were offered, so it is not possible to say. Even practicing the directed child offered a kind of mastery, however, and this becomes even clearer when authors’ contrastive example is considered. In the second case, a playgroup leader was observed working with a group of preschool children on a writing activity that was understood by her to prepare them for formal learning in school. Field notes described the interaction between Josh and the adult: Worksheets involving drawing along dotted lines are introduced and Josh says “I can’t do it.” He flicks his pencil away saying “Go away.” The adult helps him to trace the line. She talks to him about writing his name, “Yes, a huge J.” The children are then given shapes worksheets and Josh says “Go away, I don’t want a pencil”—he pushes away the pencil and paper. (Miller & Smith, 2004, p. 131)

Josh employed various strategies to resist the adult-directed literacy work. He asserted his incompetence, attempted to get rid of his pencil, and a little later complained of tiredness. All of these responses could be understood as refusals to gain mastery of writing. All his references to himself were in the negative: “I can’t, I don’t want,” and this negation operated to maintain a disjuncture between himself and the subject desired by his teacher (from her account)—the school-ready child. However, at the same time, Josh evidently complied with the directive to sit at the table and, rather than confront the adult directly, he vented at a safer target, his pencil. In this way, he also avoided stepping into the position of defiant, naughty boy. In commenting on the case of Josh, the authors stressed the imposition of adult power, which they saw as the crucial distinction between the social relations of work and those of play. They saw work, in the sense of adult-imposed formal learning, as inappropriate to the preschool context. However,

36    S. NICHOLS

they seemed to assume and accept that formal learning is characteristic of the school context, indeed as what creates the essential difference between preschool and school. No comment was made on the gender dimension of the children’s activities; the girls’ appropriation of the teacher–student roles on the one hand, and the boy’s resistance to school-like work on the other. Yet both examples are typical of gendered patterns that continue in the school entry classroom, an aspect of continuity that is rarely mentioned in the literature. Josh, Sabrina, and Yohanna are doubtless aware that they will soon be stepping into a school classroom for real. Talk about school, imagining what school is like, is an integral part of children’s lives in their preschool year. As Butler (2004) stated, ‘’The act that one does, the act that one performs, is . . . an act that has been going on before one arrived on the scene” (xx). These children may not have arrived on the scene but they know it exists and some of them use this knowledge to performatively enact the social relations of schooling before their first day of school. Those children who play school, and particularly those who take powerful roles within these play scenarios, are working on identities which will enable their mastery (and submission) to be demonstrated when school life starts for real. There is plenty of evidence that girls, more than boys, experience this kind of playful work preparation. Worksheets, Table Work, and the Gendering of Productivity Earlier, I introduced some definitions of school work offered by children (Briggs & Nichols, 2001; King, 1983, cited in Kamler et al., 1993). These definitions stress two elements, the adult role in initiating and monitoring the activity and the individualized task focus. While it has been argued that a much more diverse range of activities should be considered work, including participating in sharing time, listening to stories, and manipulation of physical objects (Kamler et al., 1993), children clearly associate the term work with a more specific set of tasks. School children experience strong cueing when a transition to work is about to occur. Examining some instances of this cueing can assist in further understanding the meaning of work in the early years classroom. The following examples are taken from a multiple case study project concerning children’s transition from home to preschool to school, Questioning Development in Literacy (QD; Comber & Nichols, 2002; Hill, 2004; Nichols, 2003, 2004, 2008). On one occasion in a Year 1 class, the author had been requested to assist the teacher by measuring some children, and Sally had been assigned

Girls and Boys, Work and Play     37

as a helper. As soon as the teacher began to hand out worksheets, Sally said politely, “I think I’ll stop helping now and go and do my work, OK? I’ll come back later.” Sally’s statement shows she understood precisely when a transition to a work activity was taking place; it was signaled by the worksheet distribution. Mrs. C, a reception teacher in the project, started each day with a structured routine, incorporating drawing, roll call, story reading, and guided discussion of concepts from the story text. However, she did not use the term “work” until it was time to send the children to their tables. The teacher stated, “Now we’re getting to the serious side of things: our work for today.” She then explained that children should first find the right page of their workbooks, the very next blank page following the previous working session. She held up the first of the day’s worksheets which, on this occasion, featured drawings of several objects. Pointing to the graphic of an elephant, Mrs. C read its caption aloud, “I am an  . . . ” and described the task, “You’ve got to think of an ‘e’ word.” Before sending them to their seats, Mrs. C reminded children to put finger spaces between words and to put the date on the sheet. Mrs. C’s instructions assist us in understanding what might be meant by the term “serious” in her characterization of work as an activity. Work is textual; it involves transformation of the incomplete text (the page with blanks spaces) to the complete text (the page with all blanks filled in by the child’s textual traces). Work is specified down to the micro level; anything other than absolute compliance with all directions cannot be considered completion. Work is physically disciplined; the page holds the child’s gaze and body. Work produces individual accountability; each child must complete his/her own sheet. This definition of work produces definitions of the ideal worker and the problematic worker. The choice of non-worker is unavailable, despite some children’s attempts to occupy this position. It is the problematic worker who becomes highly visible in a context in which every child is doing the same task over the same time-frame, sitting down while an adult circulates around the room. Analysis of observations over the QD project reveals that teachers monitored boys’ performance of table work more closely than girls and, correspondingly, that boys’ strategies to escape this work or transform it into play were more visible than girls’ avoidance strategies. This is consistent with research conducted mainly with older student populations which reports that teachers’ concerns about boys’ perceived underachievement are strongly associated with the issue of productivity, and, specifically, with the completion of text-based tasks. In the early years classrooms observed, teachers’ explicit surveillance of boys during table work included such strategies as naming, standing alongside, overlooking, reminding, increasing the fre-

38    S. NICHOLS

quency of reminders, giving praise for each task element completed, and specifying times for task elements. As an illustration of this monitoring, all teacher utterances made to a particular Year 1 boy over the duration of a writing task have been listed below. The task took the form of a worksheet which required responses to a story the teacher had previously read. The child, Toby, was a talkative boy considered to be easily distracted. Over the half hour allocated to the task, the teacher made the following comments to Toby: 1. Toby, your writing has just come along beautifully. 2. You started so beautifully Toby. 3. Would you find those animals in the city? They’re more likely to be in the bush. 4. Toby, you have to finish your writing. So do you [names another child]. 5. What I’d like to see now is you finishing your writing. Right now, quick! I’m going to sit here [squats beside Toby’s chair]. What was the story about? Can you remember? 6. OK, finished Toby? I’m just about there to see that sentence done. 7. Toby, what have you been asked to do? [ Toby replies “Finish the sentence”] Well do it. Now. 8. That’s two minutes to finish this. In the first four interactions, the teacher began with positive feedback, encouragement, and questioning. She used the child’s name, perhaps with the intention of reinforcing his agency, and refrained from any first person invocations of her own agenda. In the fifth interaction, these strategies were discarded and the teacher’s agency was invoked: “What I’d like to see now is you finishing your writing. Right now, quick! I’m going to sit here.” She employed her body in an attempt to compel action through close proximity. From the fourth exchange, every teacher utterance included the word “finish.” Toby was not able to escape being made aware of the teacher’s view of the problem of his low productivity. This exchange was typical of interactions between teachers and those boys considered unproductive during seat work. Toby’s View The case of Toby offers a rare opportunity to hear a child articulate a view of his positioning within the classroom as a workplace (Nichols, 2004). His views, expressed regularly in informal conversations with the researcher over two years, are consistent with the view of work expressed in the child survey (Briggs & Nichols, 2001). Toby’s views, however, add an element of complexity since Toby does not take a stance of simple or direct

Girls and Boys, Work and Play     39

resistance. Rather, there is a sense in which he attempts to maintain both a playful and a productive orientation to school, even though this never seems to translate into the product desired by his teachers—the written task completed independently within the time allocated. During a worksheet activity in his Reception class, Toby addressed the researcher, who was busy writing field notes, as follows: Toby: Are you still here? Researcher: Yes. I’ll be hanging around a bit longer too. Toby: You must be having fun, not. In the conversation that followed, Toby and his friends compared the here of the Reception classroom to the there of the ELC (Early Learning Center), a flexible play-oriented preschool: Toby: We want to go back to the ELC; don’t we Connor? Connor: Yes! Researcher: Why’s that? Toby: It’s bigger. It’s much bigger. Isn’t it Connor? Connor: Yes. Toby: And you don’t have to do work there. Only play. Martin: More toys. Toby: We have to work all the time here. Toby’s Reception teacher, while she was aware of the restricted space in the classroom and its impact on the children’s movement, could have disputed the notion that she made the children work all the time. Many of the learning activities were framed as fun and playful, and there were numerous play objects in the room and its adjoining outdoor space, such as construction sets, blocks, painting gear, and so on. However, for Toby and the other boys at his table, play, as they had previously understood it, was associated with freedom of movement, ample provision of toys, and the absence of demands for productivity. In this sense, it was unlike the school-oriented role play carried out by girls such as cases of Susannah and Yoshana. This is not to suggest that girls did not also appreciate the scope for movement and spontaneity offered by the ELC, but rather that many girls, unlike most boys, also experienced the kinds of peer play that recreated school-like work practices and social relations. In the Reception classroom, Toby and his peers were learning that the meaning of play had to be understood in relation to work: Researcher: Don’t you get to play?

40    S. NICHOLS



Toby: Yes. We do get to play after we’ve done our work. . . . In fact (raises eyebrows) I’m starting to think this work might be a bit fun. I think I’m getting onto this. Because I think, “Get your work done, then you can play.” (Shrugs like it’s no hassle.)

Toby had clearly come to understand the message that play was not the primary activity in this new space. Work was the focal activity, and play was the reward for work. This also entailed understanding that activities were sequenced in time; some came first (work) and others afterwards (play). Toby’s words represent him during his Reception year as a transitional subject—someone who is starting to think in a new way and getting into a new role. The self-consciousness with which he enacted this process was striking. Toby created a self-regulatory voice that took the teacher’s position—get your work done, then you can play. The eyebrow raising, voicing, and shrugging all show him performing the part of one who is able to puzzle out a situation and handle a new challenge. Toby was observed enacting work preparation without actually completing much of the task. He spent time getting work tools (pencils), maintaining the tools (sharpening the pencils) and adjusting the furniture (shaking his plastic chair to make it more comfortable). Toby drew on his ability to play, to perform a role, as a resource in what was evidently the difficult task of becoming a successful school subject. At home he spent much of his time in solo play and was reported by his parents to act a whole case of characters in extended imaginary scenarios. At preschool, he exerted energy enlisting other children into, and maintaining the flow of, similar scenarios. However, it seemed that Toby had no experience prior to school of playing the teacher in relation to a child subject and of switching roles between the director and the directed in a schoollike play context. Thus, his ability to play did not parlay effectively into the social relations of school work. However, there are other contexts in early years schooling in which the social relations of work and play shift, creating the possibility of differently gendered positions. One of these is the specialist gifted class. Here, it seems that pedagogic practices and task structures may enable many boys to draw on their play subjectivities and, correspondingly, position girls versed in teacher-play as less successful. Good Ideas or Fair Effort? Boys and Girls in the Gifted Class The notion of giftedness has introduced another discourse into early childhood education, one which interacts in interesting ways with ideas of

Girls and Boys, Work and Play     41

schoolwork, play and gender. The concept of intellectual potential is central to the attribution of giftedness. As Walkerdine’s (1988, 1994) analysis has shown, the notion of potential has an antithetical relationship to the notion of effort. Potential is understood by teachers, and middle-class parents, as an untapped resource of natural intelligence that is inside children, particularly gifted children. Effort, on the other hand, is the work a child does to perform a task. This work enables achievement to be better than it would have been if the child did not make an effort but, for those with potential, not as good as it could be if that untapped intelligence had simply flowed out. Teachers in Walkerdine’s (1994) study explained bright girls’ performance as “based on hard work and rule-following rather than brains or brilliance” (p. 58). When asked how they could recognize a gifted student, early years teachers cited a list of classroom behaviors, including: • adapting quickly and effectively to change in the environment • shaping the environment to suit them better in ways that were successful • selecting alternative environments by isolating themselves and withdrawing from peers and the teacher • rebelling in class by verbal and/or physical means (Lee, 2002). For all but the first descriptor, it was overwhelmingly boys who became noticeable for these behaviors. In terms of orientations to school work, it was precisely boys’ lack of compliance with classroom work norms (quietness, remaining seated) and their questioning of set tasks that made them more visible to teachers. Indeed, Lee’s study was prompted by the fact that five times as many boys as girls had been nominated by their early years teachers for a specialist gifted program. One of the schools in the QD Project ran a twice-weekly program for Reception children identified by their teachers as having high intellectual potential. Observing in these sessions enabled me to understand how the pedagogic relations of gifted methodology produced gendered relations to work and play different to, and in a sense a reversal of, those in the regular class. In the example below, I focus mainly on one girl. Prudence had not initially been selected by her regular teacher for inclusion in the gifted program; she entered via a psychological assessment organized by her parents. Thus, I could assume that in the classroom she did not fit the image of a gifted child. Observations indicated she did all her work exactly as instructed and, indeed, was particularly concerned about completing it correctly. At the same time, she kept a playful social orientation with her peers, particularly through the popular scenario of imaginary romances. Work on task was often accompanied by talk about boyfriends

42    S. NICHOLS

and domestic futures of marriage and children. Owing to her productivity, Prudence was not the subject of the kind of surveillance and regulation experienced by boys like her peer, Toby. One particular day, the gifted session began with a story concerned with the attempts of a little old lady and a little old man to transport their worldly possessions across a stony desert by reluctant camels. The children were given the task of inventing a vehicle capable of carrying the old couple and all their belongings across what the teacher described as rough country with no roads. Mrs M, the teacher, encouraged each child to design and draw something that had not been invented yet. For many of the boys, this task put them in familiar territory. They were used to constructing and playing with vehicles, often in competitive ways, and their talk during the task had a similar flavor to their play interactions. They threw out challenges to each other, giving their vehicles impressive sounding names and claiming the superior advantages of the qualities with which they would be endowed. On one occasion, a girl was heard attempting to participate in this kind of challenge:

Boy 1: I know what! A flying motorbike. Girl 1: Mine can fly up as well. Boy 1: Oh, that’s just a normal one. That’s a normal one.

Prudence seemed particularly concerned about her ability to complete this task. At the start of the invention activity, she twice called out to the teacher, “I don’t know how to draw a car.” Mrs. M did nor respond directly to Prudence’s appeal for help but circulated around the room, emphasizing the importance of originality by asking children to add something new and make it different. Prudence said little and drew a conventional looking sedan car. Underneath the car, she drew a road which stretched from one side of the page to the other and had a dotted line dividing its two lanes. She seemed satisfied with this and spent the next ten minutes coloring the car before looking up and seeming to register what the teacher was saying about the necessity for new and different creations. She then added what looked like a long streamer and quietly announced to her table mate, “It’s a wedding car.” When it was sharing time, two girls refused to participate. Gabi said, “I’m not showing mine.” Her table mate, Ashleigh, added, “Mine isn’t finished.” Like Prudence, these girls were normally successful task completers in their regular classroom. All the boys seemed eager to talk about their invented vehicles. The different reactions of girls and boys to the task, and the invitation to share, indicate that pedagogic relations may be differently gendered in the gifted compared to the regular class. Examining teacher responses to the children’s outcomes adds weight to this view.

Girls and Boys, Work and Play     43

Table 2.1 contains the teacher’s verbal responses to each child’s display and descriptions of their creations. All the girls were given responses that either suggested or explicitly stated that their inventions required more work. In contrast, only two out of the five boys received suggestions, and in only one case was this directive. Two of the girls received no positive feedback from the teacher, but only directions to do more work. None of the boys received this kind of response—when suggestions were given, so was praise. So, not only were girls’ productions seen as less satisfactory, but the deficiencies were to be remedied by work; girls were positioned as workers rather than as successful inventors. While the boys’ habits of play held them in good stead in this activity, such was not the case for Prudence. This is not because she only did the work, but because the play scenarios familiar to her (i.e., playing at weddings) did not translate into the kind of mechanical inventiveness emphasized by the teacher. The task of designing an all-terrain vehicle clashed with Prudence’s fantasy of the ideal wedding trip, which presumably involved a smooth ride for the bride, a problem she solved by adding a paved road. Mrs. M’s response, however, did not reward this initiative, but rather positioned Prudence as having failed to understand the task: “You forgot it was in the country.” After this exchange, Prudence returned to her seat, put her head down on the table and did not move for some minutes. After a while, she rubbed out the road and drew rocks around her wedding car. Table 2.1  Teacher’s Verbal Response in the Gifted Classroom Response to girls 1. 1) You’re going to be well and truly protected. 2) You’ll have to work on that. But I think it will be very good if you want to go through enemy territory. 2. So that’s what you need to work on next 3. 1) What a good idea. 2) You forgot it was in the country. Perhaps you could turn it into a paddock. 4. So that’s what you have to work on next.

5.

Responses to boys Thank you, Ollie.

1) Good idea 2) You’ll need to put that in. [Not noted owing to noise from girls sitting out and from Ollie]

1) You might like to write a little label. 2) I don’t think there are any questions. Everyone has understood your explanation and is happy with it. 1) Wonderful! 2) That would look very pretty wouldn’t it? Then people could see it coming.

44    S. NICHOLS

Submission was only belatedly achieved; the pleasure afforded by being recognized as having mastered the role was not to be hers. Conclusion The relationship between work and play in early childhood is complex and contested, involving both adult and child agendas connected to broader social forces related to gender and productivity. A view of play as a zone of freedom oppositional to the zone of adult-imposed work can prevent early childhood researchers and practitioners from seeing these complexities. Simple comparisons are not adequate to describe girls’ and boys’ different orientations to, and participation in, early schooling. Describing girls as compliant and boys as resistant, or boys as playful and girls as good workers, does not do justice to all children’s efforts to succeed within the social relations of schooling. Success is a difficult negotiation, as it involves being accountable both to the teacher and to peers. It is clear, though, that girls and boys enter school for the first time with different experiences of play and that this impacts significantly on their positioning in the classroom as a workplace. Girls are more likely to have played at school work and, thus, to have imaginatively entered into the social relations of school either as teacher, student, or both. Boys also draw on their play repertoires, not only to entertain themselves in the classroom, but also, in the transition to an unfamiliar zone, to act out possible personas. Toby optimistically attempted to perform work-like postures as if that, and not actual productivity, might suffice. After all, if at home he acted the part of a scientist, no one expected him to actually do experiments. Trying to teach boys like Toby the meaning of productivity exercises their teachers in continual surveillance and regulation during those activities designated as work. The introduction of a discourse of giftedness and its associated pedagogic practices into the early years classroom changes gendered relations to work and play. Young girls who are positioned as good workers in the regular class may experience themselves as unsuccessful in the gifted class. When regular classroom teachers describe the young gifted child, they emphasize behaviors that are at odds with the subject of the good worker and, consequently, are much more likely to identify boys as gifted (Lee, 2002). Ironically, in the gifted class when girls exhibit such behaviors as refusal, withdrawal, or reshaping the task to suit their own agendas, they are unable to benefit from being seen as possessing potential. Boys’ playful modes of participation, which may put them at odds with the teacher’s agenda in the regular class, enable their smooth positioning into the pedagogic relations of the gifted classroom.

Girls and Boys, Work and Play     45

Debates about the relative merits of teacher-centered and child-centered curricula, and their (dis)advantages for girls and boys will not go far towards addressing issues of early childhood gendered work and play. Rethinking the nature of work and play, and their relation, in the light of what is known about gendered patterns of participation may offer possibilities. Such rethinking should involve disrupting the work–play binary in order to open up new ways of relating to education and social participation. Becoming a successful social actor in early childhood education involves strategy, effort, imagination, compliance, persistence and daring— qualities children and adults can bring to both work and play. Acknowledgements The Questioning Development Project was funded by the Australian Research Council. Chief investigators: Barbara Comber, Susan Hill, William Louden, JoAnn Reid, Judith Rivalland. References Briggs, F. & Nichols, S. (2001). Pleasing yourself and working for the teacher: Children’s perceptions of school. Early Childhood Development and Care, 170, 13–30. Butler, J. (1990) Gender trouble, feminist theory, and psychoanalytic discourse. In L. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminist/Postmodernism (pp. 201–211). London: Routledge. Butler, J. (1995). Contingent foundations: Feminism and the question of postmodernism. In S. Benhabib, J. Butler, D. Cornell, & N. Fraser (Eds.), Feminist contentions: A philosophical exchange (pp. 35–57). New York: Routledge. Butler, J. (1997). The psychic life of power. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Taylor & Francis Routledge. Clark, M. (1990). The great divide: The construction of gender in the primary school. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation. Comber, B. & Nichols, S. (2003). Getting the big picture: Regulating knowledge in the early childhood literacy curriculum. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 4(1), 43–63. Davies, B. (2006). Subjectification: the relevance of Butler’s analysis for education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(4), 425–438. Dyson, A. H. (1994). The ninjas, the x-men, and the ladies: Playing with power and identity in an urban primary school. Teachers College Record, 96(2), 219–239. Hey, V. (2006). The politics of resignification: Translating Judith Butler’s theoretical discourse and its potential for a sociology of education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(4), 439–457. Hill, S. (2004). Privileged literacy in preschool. Australian Journal of Literacy and Language, 27(2), 159–171.

46    S. NICHOLS Huston, A., & Carpenter, C. (1985). Gender differences in preschool classrooms: The effects of sex-typed activity choices. In L. Wilkinson & C. Marret (Eds.), Gender influences in classroom interaction (pp. 143–165). London: Academic Press. Jeffrey, B. (2002). Performativity and primary teacher relations. Journal of Education Policy, 17(5), 531–546. Jones, L. & Brown, T. (2001). Reading’ the nursery classroom: A Foucauldian perspective. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(6), 713–725. King, N. (1988) Play in the workplace. In M. Apple & L. Weis (Eds.), Ideology and practice in schooling (pp. 262–280). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Kamler, B., Maclean, R., Reid, J., & Simpson, A. (1992). Shaping up nicely: The formation of schoolgirls and schoolboys in the first month of school. Canberra: Department of Employment Education and Training. Lee, L. (2002). Young gifted girls and boys: perspectives through the lens of gender. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3(3), 383–399. MacNaughton, G. (1995). The power of mum! Gender and power at play. Watson: Australian Early Childhood Association. Miller, L., & Smith, A. P. (2004). Practitioners’ beliefs and children’s experiences of literacy in four early years settings. Early Years, 24(2), 122–133. Myhill, D. (2002). Bad boys and good girls? Patterns of interaction and response in whole class teaching. British Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 339–352. Nichols, S. (2003). Reading the social world. In J. Barnett & B. Comber (Eds.) Look Again: Longitudinal case studies of children learning literacy (pp. 85–98). Rozelle: PETA. Nichols, S. (2004). Literacy learning and children’s social agendas in the school entry classroom. Australian Journal of Literacy and Language, 27(2), 101–113. Nichols, S. (2008). Ghosts, houses and the psycho brother: A young girl working on gendered and schooled identities through text production. Redress Parke, T., Drury, R., Kenner, C., & Robertson, L. H. (2002). Revealing invisible worlds: Connecting the mainstream with bilingual children’s home and community learning. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 2(2), 195–220. Olsen, G. & Worsham, L. (2004). Changing the subject: Judith Butler’s politics of radical resignification. In S. Salih (Ed.), The Judith Butler reader. London: Blackwell. Renold, E. (2006). They won’t let us play . . . unless you’re going out with one of them’: Girls, boys and Butler’s ‘heterosexual matrix’ in the primary years. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(4), 489–509. Skattebol, J. (2006). Playing boys: The body, identity and belonging in the early years. Gender and Education, 18(3), 507–522. Solsken, J. (1992). Literacy, gender, and work in families and in schools. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Thorne, B. (1992). Girls and boys together . . . but mostly apart. In J. Wrigley (Ed.), Education and gender equality (pp. 115–130). London: The Falmer Press. Walkerdine, V. (1988). The mastery of reason. London: Routledge. Walkerdine, V. (1994). Developmental psychology and the child-centered pedagogy: The insertion of Piaget into early education. In J. Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Urwin, C. Venn, & V. Walkerdine (Eds.), Changing the subject (pp. 153–202). London: Methuen.

Chapter 3

Young Children’s Gendered Positioning and Emotional Scenarios in Play Narratives Samara Madrid Laurie Katz

Girls are lost kitties because there are no boy kitties. Boys are dogs But they can be kitties if they want Because they are just boys and that’s how Allah made them I know Allah because I am Muslim I wish for my hair to be straight I wish for a prince to dance with me who is my size Laura, 9-11-06, Field Notes

At four years old, Laura is already defining the positions that males versus females can assume. Boys are dogs. Girls are kitties. This is so because boys are just made that way by Allah. Laura, at age 4, is longing to change her appearance. Her hair is curly. She wishes for it to be straight. She also wishes for a prince to dance with her. She is actively constructing notions related to the male/female binary as a Muslim female. At four years old she is appropriating stories about love, beauty, gender, and religion. Her words capture the essence of the questions that are addressed in this chapter: Gender and Early Learning Environments, pages 47–66 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

47

48    S. MADRID and L. KATZ

1. What are the play narratives that children construct over time and across situations in the early childhood classroom? 2. How do children construct emotional scenarios and gendered positions through their play roles? These questions were part of an ethnographic study examining young children’s interactions through their play in an early childhood classroom. Play in the early childhood classroom provides a critical space for children to learn how to engage in social relationships as well as to explore their gendered identities. In this study we built on research regarding children’s gendered positioning by exploring not only how children construct gendered positions, but also how children’s gendered positions and the play narrative in which they are embedded support specific “emotional scenarios” (Gergen, 1994, p. 225). Emotional scenarios are the performative norms that are supported in the play narrative (i.e., mother love in family play, male/female romantic love in princess play). Feminist poststructural theorists who study gender and early childhood suggest that gender is a fluid and dynamic construct that is socially constructed as children act and react in their social worlds (Blaise, 2005, Cannella, 1997; Davies, 1989, 1998, 2000; MacNaughton, 2000, 2005; Walkerdine, 1984; Wohlwend, 2009). Gender is not something biologically given; it is something that children learn how to do as they participate in collective stories about being male and female. Within poststructuralist thought, the person (and the idea of what it means to be a person) is collectively and discursively constituted. The collectivity of women with their shared experience and emotions—their female subjectivity—is made possible because as “women” they are spoken into existence through the same collective images, metaphors, and storylines as other women (Davies, 2000). What are the collective images and storylines that narrate our lives as women and men and boys and girls? For example, in early childhood classrooms, young girls may act out female characters in fantasy stories such as Belle from Beauty and the Beast and Ariel from The Little Mermaid, or they may act out female familial characters such as mommies, brides, and girlfriends, or they act out professions such as dancers, doctors, and teachers. Through play narratives, children explore various subjectivities that discursively constitute how to love as a mother, get angry as a girlfriend, desire as a princess, feel pride as a dancer; or feel competent as a doctor (Slade, 1994). Davies and Harré’s (1990) notion of positioning has been used to describe how children’s play narratives make available specific positions. What are the positions made available to males when they are superheroes versus the positions made available to females when they are lost kitties that are rescued by the superheroes? Positioning is defined as possible ways of being as people take themselves up as “individuals through various discourses (along with the inevitable contradictions among them) as they are made

Young Children’s Gendered Positioning and Emotional Scenarios in Play Narratives    49

available in spoken and written form” (Fernie, Davies, Kantor, & McMurray, 1993, p. 98). Possible ways of being are multiple, complex, contradictory, and related to power and dominance. Each day in the classroom setting, children take up, reject, negotiate, and construct various positions as well as assign positions to others. Positions are always being negotiated as people act and react to one another. Positions involve categorization and often include the social construction of binaries (e.g., male/female, good student/ bad student, insider/outsider, reader/non-reader), which are related to the ongoing process of discursively narrating who one is in relation to others. Gendered Emotions In the process of becoming male or female, children learn not only their gendered subjectivity, but also the emotional subjectivity associated with the masculine or feminine position. In other words, when children learn how to do gender, they also learn how to do the emotions with masculine and feminine positions. Social constructionist theory suggests that emotions are social in nature; they are transmitted, created, and maintained in social action and social life (Gergen, 1994, 1999; Harré, 1986; Lutz, 1988). Emotion, just as gender, is socially constructed through and by language and discourse and related to history, culture and ideology. Shields (2002) suggested, “Emotion education includes not only, ‘because you are a boy, feel/ show X, but also feel/show X in order to become a boy’” (p. 91). More specifically, she falls in love with a prince because she is a girl, but she also falls in love with a prince in order to become a girl. Comparatively, a boy may play in a role as a powerful superhero because he is a boy, but, also, he may show emotion by playing a powerful superhero role in order to become a boy. Children’s play spaces cultivate and allow for various positions to be taken up and practiced over and over again. For example, during princess play, young females are not just exploring how to be a princess, but also how to become a girl by falling in love with a prince (i.e., a male). In doll play, females are not just exploring how to be a mother, but also how to be a loving female in relation to their children. Whether played alone or with others, play narratives allow young children to practice emotional scenarios associated with their subject position (Gergen, 1994, 1999). This is illustrated in the following example from Gilbert’s (1994) work on children’s storylines and the construction of gender: One day there was a little girl called Kathleen. She found a gold pot. It was a useful pot. She rubbed it. A genie came out of it. The genie said “You have three wishes”. “I wish I had the prettiest dress in the whole world”

50    S. MADRID and L. KATZ “But now it’s your second wish” “I wish I had long blonde hair” “I wish I was a princess in a castle” Then she got her three wishes. Then she was happy. In the castle the next day she got married with a handsome prince and they lived happily ever after. THE END. (Gilbert, 1994, p. 124)

The preceding example suggests to young girls what it means to achieve and obtain happiness. It also suggests a type of dependency upon another to be granted this happiness (a male in relation to a female). The girl, in her search for happiness, does not do this on her own, but rather is granted happiness from a genie that gives her the tools needed to make her desirable (i.e., the prettiest dress in the whole world, long blonde hair, and being a princess in a castle). What is striking in Gilberts example is that the princess does not own, build, destroy, or live in the castle. Rather the princess is contained in a castle. She gets her three wishes and she is happy— her emotional state of happiness being a result of her beautiful dress, long blonde hair, and life in the castle. The story ends with the princess getting her three wishes and marrying the prince, and they live happily ever after. Of course this storyline is not new and neither is my analysis of it (Davies, 1989; Gilbert, 1994; Gilbert & Taylor, 1991; Walkerdine, 1984); however, not always recognized is how the narrative creates an emotional scenario about romantic love and happiness for young females. Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to report findings from our study that explored how gendered positions and emotional scenarios are constructed in children’s play narratives in the early childhood classroom. Play narratives were defined in this study as imaginary and real-life scenarios and stories that children constructed and performed in their spontaneous play episodes (Paley, 1981). For example, a play narrative could consist of two girls being Ariel and another child being the Sea Witch from the Disney movie, The Little Mermaid. It could consist of two males being the red and yellow power rangers and two females who are the lost kitties they are rescuing. In play narratives, children act out and perform scenarios around activities such as (a) going to the store, (b) getting married, (c) taking care of babies, (d) building a chocolate factory, driving a car, (e) rescuing a princess and (f) fighting a monster. The Study Setting and Participants Our study was conducted in a preschool classroom, consisting of 20 (11 female & nine male) children at a University Lab School situated in the Mid-

Young Children’s Gendered Positioning and Emotional Scenarios in Play Narratives    51

west part of the United States. Two Caucasian female teachers participated in the study over the course of eight months. Both teachers held graduate degrees in early childhood. Children who attend the school range from three to five years of age and come from diverse backgrounds (i.e., Caucasian, Chinese, Asian American, African American, South American, and Saudi Arabian). This site was selected because of the structure and philosophy of the school, based on the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. This approach, which originated in Reggio Emilia, Italy, is based on the image of the child who enters the world as a social being, curious, intelligent, and competent. Children learn through their relationships to people, things, and ideas. Teachers aim to support children’s network of associations and their participation in a world of family members, peers, community members, and the physical environment. “Children are expected to be active and resourceful and to generate innovation and change in the systems in which they are involved” (Edwards, 2007, p. 699). In this classroom, children are perceived as active agents who are always constructing and negotiating knowledge with others. For example, the teachers encouraged children to make their own choices about what activities to engage in throughout the day, which allowed for ample peer interaction as well as unstructured time in which children’s play narratives could be documented. Body of Data We used an ethnographic approach where the first author, acting as a participant observer over an eight-month period, explored the daily patterns and themes that existed in the daily life of the classroom (Kantor & Fernie, 2003). Data were gathered through videotaping, review of video with children, audio taping, field notes, conducting formal interviews with teachers, informal conversations with teachers, and then revisiting all these data resources. Through this approach, the culture of this early childhood classroom was captured noting the shared actions, beliefs, language, knowledge and attitudes of the children and teachers (Goodenough, 1981). Data were not simply gathered and analyzed in linear fashion, but were continually interpreted and re-interpreted through a recycling of questions and answers, both informing the other (Spradley, 1980). A back and forth movement from a general broad perspective to a focused deeper approach was used. This allowed for continual reflection about data-gathering techniques and interpretation of the data as they were situated in the daily life of the classroom. Videotaping occurred approximately two to three times per week. Videotaped accounts were logged and indexed in field notes. The camera was positioned either in a stationary spot or carried along if the children moved

52    S. MADRID and L. KATZ

around the classroom. A wireless microphone was placed in the center of the children’s play area or worn by one of the target children. Video-taped events used in the analyses were selected during data collection as the researcher participated in the classroom and followed the children’s actions and reactions around the play narratives. After an event was recorded, it was noted in the field notes, which the researcher returned to on the day of, or shortly after, data collection, as well as later during the study when related events occurred. Such events were also discussed with teachers formally and informally during and after they occurred. They were also discussed with children through a method called video-revisiting, which entails watching a videotaped account with children to obtain their perspective about the event (Forman, 1999). Targeted Children Our findings are represented from two peer culture play routines that were constructed by two groups of children in the classroom. The first peer group engaged in a reoccurring play narrative that focused on a storyline about kitties. The portion of the data selected and analyzed in this chapter is taken from a six-week period in which the lead researcher purposefully selected five females (Mary, Sally, Katie, Caitlin, and Ann) as target children to conduct a focused theoretical sampling (Corsaro, 1985) of their interactions as they engaged in kitty play. The second peer group examined focused on two females (Sally and Laura) and one male (Erick) who constructed a reoccurring play narrative that centered on being boyfriend and girlfriend. The portion of the data selected and analyzed in this chapter was also taken from a six-week period in which the researcher purposefully selected these three children (Sally, Laura, & Erick) again as “target” children to conduct a focused theoretical sampling of their interactions (Corsaro, 1985). It must be noted that the examination of these two peer groups and their play narratives occurred at different times during the eight-month study and did not overlap. However, Sally was a common thread between the two play groups. The choice to focus on these to two play narratives (Kitty and Boyfriend/ Girlfriend) was chosen based on the following: 1. They both included Sally, who was a key player in both play narratives. 2. They were noted [at least one] on each day that field notes were recorded, which revealed a pattern of the play in the classroom. 3. They occurred and appeared on a regular basis prior to and during my observation.

Young Children’s Gendered Positioning and Emotional Scenarios in Play Narratives    53

4. They were themes that teachers noted in interviews and daily conversations. 5. They could be triangulated to other data sources (participant observation, field notes, informal and formal interviews) Analysis was conducted by first transcribing the video and audio taped events that occurred and then illustrative events were chosen for detailed micro-level analyses (Bloome, Power-Carter, Morton-Christian, Otto, & Shuart-Farris, 2005). Each of these play narratives was part of the daily life of the classroom and represented a central theme of how children constructed gender and emotional scenarios within their play. Playing Kitties The first play narrative, Playing Kitties, centered on five females playing kitties. The kitty narrative was described for only females by the key players (i.e., Ann, Caitlin, Katie, Mary and Sally). When asked if males could be kitties, Sally said, “No, they can only be dogs.” When the males were asked if boys could be kitties, their response was often “no, they are superheroes,” “they are owners,” or “they are dogs.” When asked further about this, the boys would acknowledge that males could be kitties, but they did not like to be kitties. Males recognized that they were capable of taking on various positions, including kitties; however, they preferred to assume roles that matched with the gendered identities that had been constructed through their borderwork—that is, boys are dogs (masculine) and girls are kittens (feminine). Thorne (1993) suggests the term “borderwork helps to conceptualize interaction across-yet interaction based on and even strengthening-gender boundaries” (p. 64). For example, girls did not assume the role of being the dog in their kitty narrative, suggesting that the girls also chose to endorse kitty as a feminine position and dog as a masculine one, creating boundaries between male and female roles in their play narratives. Children understood that playing kitty or a dog was not inherently a masculine or feminine position. It was the construction of these social identities within their play that made being a kitty female and a dog male. This is illustrated in the following excerpt, where Ann, Caitlin, Katie, and Mary determine who can be part of a kitty meeting. The term kitty meeting was used by the girls to describe the video revisiting procedure (Forman, 1999) used by the lead researcher (Samara) and reveals how the group appropriated a research procedure to edify and carry out their play theme. Kitty as a distinctly female position was constructed through the group’s actions and reactions, as illustrated in the next transcript excerpt Kitty Meeting, in which Ann, Caitlin, Katie and Mary determine who can be part of a kitty meeting. Sally was also part of this discussion but chose not to add to the conversation.

54    S. MADRID and L. KATZ

Kitty Meeting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Katie: Boys cannot come in. Caitlin: I am a kitty. Katie: You look gorgeous like that (to Caitlin) Ann: Are you going to the meeting about kitties? Katie: Yes, she plays kitty. Caitlin: And Sally plays kitty so she’s in too. Yeah, but only girls. Katie: Hi mom, hi mom. Caitlin: I am a kitty. Katie: Oh Caitlin: but we can still dance Katie: But I am going to be the big sister. Ann: Remember that day when I was here first. That was a long time ago, Mary right. It was when all the boys were not here. It was when all the girls were here and no boys. Mary: Only Luke can be. Katie: Nathan can chase us.

In line 1, Katie asserts her notion about the composition of their kitty meeting. By stating that boys cannot be part of this play, she is creating boundaries between male and female play, while also positioning girls within a specific type of play. Excluding males from the meeting made a clear distinction about the activities that males versus females could engage in within the classroom and shows how they used the kitty role to determine and define group membership by gender. In the exchange above, as well as in conversations prior to and after this discussion, membership in the kitty play narrative was firmly established according to gender. There was also a strong emphasis on appearance among these girls. In line 2, Caitlin states that she’s a kitty and Katie follows up Caitlin’s remark by a compliment in line 3 by describing how she is gorgeous. The females were exploring femininity not just through acting like kittens, mothers, and princesses, but also through highlighting and focusing on their appearance within these roles. Blaise (2005) suggested using terms such as gorgeous, beautiful, and pretty within female play “creates and sustains the gendered elements of the current social structure, as such praise values certain ways of being a girl while ignoring and marginalizing ways of being gendered” (p. 80). In contrast, when boys joined in the kitty play narrative they did not focus on being gorgeous or discuss their physical appearance as related to attractiveness but made references pertaining to male power and physical strength as is illustrated in the following video-revisiting scenario Having Power with Mary, a member of the kitty group, and Wesley, a male child who often tried rescue the kitties with his male superhero powers.

Young Children’s Gendered Positioning and Emotional Scenarios in Play Narratives    55

Having Power

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

Samara: What does it mean to have power? Wesley: It means that you can fight Samara: It means you can fight Mary: Yeah Samara: Do both boys and girls have power? Wesley: No just boys Mary: Just boys Samara: How come girls don’t have power? Wesley: Because they just don’t and they did not get born that way and their moms did not have power. Samara: What can you do with power? Wesley: Girls first have power when they are a baby and then they run out Samara: How do you get power? Wesley: You go like this (makes fighting moves) and you run very fast.

In this video-revisiting scenario Having Power, Mary and Wesley position males as powerful and females as powerless. In response to Samara’s question in line 8 about why girls don’t have power, Wesley gives a reason in line 9 in terms of something that girls are not born with further reasoning that they can’t have power if their moms don’t have power. In line 13 Wesley shows through his actions the power males have. Having power and the ability to fight is defined as a male characteristic, which is quite the opposite of the kitty roles that these females took up. For example, children often embody wild and aggressive animals in their animal family play (Corsaro, 2003). However, the females in this group choose to use the position of a domesticated animal (i.e., kitty), rather than being an aggressive, wild, and/or harmful animal. Kitty also denotes a baby animal as opposed to an adult animal (i.e., cat) and conjures up images of an animal that is cute and cuddly, helpless and dependent, further placing the kitty role in the passive domain in terms of animal roles that children could assume in their play. Lastly, within popular culture, the term kitty often represents a highly sexualized female (i.e., Pussycat and Kitten) and is sometimes used by males to refer to females. Gendered Play Groups During this study, while some of the girls were playing kitties, there was a group predominantly of boys playing superheroes (Galbraith, 2007). By setting up play groups based on gendered roles (the passive kitty versus

56    S. MADRID and L. KATZ

powerful superhero), children were creating spaces that supported specific emotional scenarios of acting out their perceptions of gender. For example, by playing kitties the girls were constructing storylines that allowed them to practice the emotional scenarios based on the kitty role. According to Shields (2002), in the act of creating these gendered narratives, children limit the types of emotional scenarios that are available to be explored: By establishing gender-exclusive play groups children set up and maintain gender-specific performance and rehearsal space for emotion. For example, the narrative themes and multiple characters that are the features of doll play afford situations to think about and practice emotion openly as a dimension of relationships and social exchange. Further the conditions within the group are such that different expectations are established regarding which emotions ought to occur and how they should be reacted to. (Shields, 2002, p. 105)

By constructing the kitty storyline as feminine and passive and the superhero as male and powerful, the girls were learning not only how to be female, but also how to be female in relation to males. For example, during one exchange, Mary and Sally told Lola that they were dangerous lions; however, as soon as Nathan joined their play, they suddenly became helpless baby kitties that needed to be rescued. Their actions toward Lola suggested that they were scary and might hurt her if she got too close. They were powerful and had the ability to harm as dangerous lions. On the other hand, when Nathan entered into the event they clung to the edge of the climber and transformed into helpless kittens that could not physically climb out. They turned from powerful dangerous lions into powerless helpless kitties. Interestingly, Lola, who was not a member of the kitty group, joined in with Nathan to rescue Mary and Sally. More importantly, by playing as kitties that were helpless, the females were discursively positioning themselves within a traditional fairytale storyline in which the male hero role saves and/or rescues the passive female role (Davies, 1989). The kitty role was also used as an access strategy for females to enter into male play narratives (Corsaro, 1997). Corsaro noted that a direct entry strategy, such as asking, Can I play? is often unsuccessful and children must find creative ways to enter into the interactive space of others. The females negotiated access into male play group by shifting the kitty roles to fit in with the superhero storyline. Thus, when entering male play, the females would often become trapped kitties or lost kitties, or the boys would become the owner of the kitties. The girls often approached the males and asked, Can I be your kitty? Will you be my owner? Can I be your lost kitty? or Can I be your trapped kitty? Merging and shifting their positions as kitties allowed them to gain access by taking on a traditional female passive role that fit with male superhero play narratives. This passive role, in relation to males whom they did not want in their play, was used as well. For example, if they wanted to

Young Children’s Gendered Positioning and Emotional Scenarios in Play Narratives    57

deny access to a male player they would say that dogs (or whatever role was assumed by the male) scared kittens and they could not play with them. Thus, the role of the passive kitten was used as an access strategy both to include and exclude males from their play. Although the females positioned themselves in passive positions within play narratives, they still held power by controlling, constructing, and directing the narrative account. For example, while they would take up the role of the passive helpless trapped kitty within the storyline, they would also be the ones to shape who, how and what happened to the trapped kitties in the narrative. In several accounts, boys from the superheroes would interact with the girls in the kitty group. For example, the male superheroes would rescue and save the kitties and/or give them power to escape, but the females would reject this power to keep the narrative alive and moving forward (for if they were saved, then the narrative would end). Another way that the kitty group maintained power and control over group membership was by using co-constructed save signs on their structures in the block area when they would build a kitty home. Save signs, a classroom ritual, were brown pieces of paper that children would write their name on and tape to a structure they had built so that another child or group of children would not take it down. Children could also paste their picture on the slips of paper. Paper, small pictures of each child, tape, and pens were readily available for the children for this purpose. The females in the kitty group would use a single piece of brown paper and attach not just one but several group members’ pictures to the brown paper. Thus, the save sign became a co-constructed affiliation maker (Elgas, Klien, Kantor, & Fernie, 1988), demonstrating and affirming that they conceived of themselves as a play group with a shared membership and message. From an adult perspective, the passive roles the females assumed in relation to male play might appear to be a prescient or early learning of submissive positioning; however, when considering who was actually constructing and directing the play narrative, the females actually held a great deal of power over their positioning. Playing Girlfriend While the first play narrative focused on five females Playing Kitties, the second peer group focused on two females and one male play that centered on Playing Girlfriend. This shift in play groups came about after four of the five females (Mary, Katie, Caitlin, and Ann) left the classroom to go to kindergarten, leaving Sally to find new play partners. What arose was a play narrative about boyfriends and girlfriends constructed by Sally, Laura, and Erick. The first play narrative focused on girls and boys interacting with each other and

58    S. MADRID and L. KATZ

among themselves through their play; the second play narrative, however, extended notions of emotional scenarios and gendered positioning by examining a different type of gendered relationship among the children characterized as Playing Girlfriend, with Laura and Sally being the girlfriend and Erick being the boyfriend. For example, Erick would often approach Laura and Sally and ask, Are you my girlfriend? Do you love me? Will you marry me? The reference to affiliation used by the children (e.g., Are you my girlfriend? Are you in love with me?) differed from the children simply asking, Are we friends?, to determine their relationship to one another (Corsaro, 2003). Being in love versus loving someone and/or being friends indexes a specific type of relationship. The meaning assigned to loving someone versus being in love is similar to the difference of being positioned as a girl friend versus a girlfriend. Both index a particular type of relationship with another person. Using the terms boyfriend, girlfriend, and being in love is based on heterosexual norms and societal discourses about male and female romantic relationships (Blaise, 2005). The important aspect of the discursive positioning of being in love and asking someone if they are your boyfriend or girlfriend, is not whether children really were in love with one another, but rather it is the social work of the question and answer (i.e., to determine a type of relationship) as well as the subsequent performance of romantic love associated with storyline that makes the question and the answer meaningful between two children (Kulick & Schieffelin, 2004). The term girlfriend, when used in relation to another female, is typically associated with a non-romantic relationship within a dominant heterosexual matrix. The term girlfriend when used in relation to a male, however, traditionally indexes a romantic relationship between a male and a female. Thus, there is a significant difference in the subject positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990) associated with the term girlfriend versus girl friend or friend. Within the children’s play narratives, the terms boyfriend and girlfriend were indeed used to indicate a pairing with the opposite gender. The play theme was another way in which the male and female binary was strengthened and attended to through borderwork between males and females in the classroom (Corsao, 2003). The position of being a girlfriend and/or boyfriend, within children’s play, was directly tied to the male/female dualism and heteronormativity. This is illustrated in the next scenario, Who Sally Loves, that occurred between Laura and Samara as they colored in the art studio: Who Sally Loves 1 Samara: Where is Sally? 2 Laura: I am not talking to her

Young Children’s Gendered Positioning and Emotional Scenarios in Play Narratives    59



3 Samara: Why? 4 Laura: She’s not my friend. She loves Erick that’s why. 5 Samara: Who do you like? 6 Laura: Nobody. No one except John

Laura appraises Sally’s act of loving Erick as negative, which is illustrated in line 4 by her positioning of Sally as someone who is not her friend. Sally loves Erick, and according to Laura that is a reason for them not to be friends. When Laura is asked in line 5 about who she likes, she states “John” in line 6, who was another male that they would name as their boyfriend. Laura specifically states that she is not Sally’s friend because Sally loves Erick, which is negative (or appraised as such by Laura) and results in a break of their friendship. It is the appraisal of Sally’s love for Erick as well as the taking up of the heternormative discourse about male/female relationships and exclusivity that is being constructed into a lived romantic love narrative within their play (Davies, 1989). This type of relationship described as romantic love is inherently tied to notions about relationships and who can and cannot engage in such relations (Christian-Smith, 1988). Romantic love is not individual, but rather occurs in relation to another person (Gergen, 1994). Because of the relational nature of romantic love it indexes an action (i.e., loving) towards another human being, which is heteronormative in our society. It also denotes a specific type of relationship between two people and is a shared cultural model. There are cultural, historical, and ideological rules and norms about the appropriate actions and reactions that should accompany the romantic love narrative and the children’s play narrative provided a space for children to explore these gendered positions and parings. One of the discourses being taken up by Laura is seen in her reaction to Sally loving Erick, as he was often positioned as someone that Laura also “loved.” Laura’s rejection of Sally is considered a social judgment, which could be linked to jealousy or exclusion because Sally is in love with Erick. Either way, the rejection is based on Sally and Erick’s relationship/friendship, of which Laura disapproves (Burr, 2003). Gendered Pairings within the Early Childhood Classroom While the teachers supported the Kitty play episodes and the children’s interactions within these narratives didn’t seem to interrupt children who were engaging in other classroom activities, the girlfriend play narrative created conflict because (1) the role was used as a tool for relational aggression and (2) only one male and one female could be boyfriend and

60    S. MADRID and L. KATZ

girlfriend at a time, excluding children from the play. The exclusive nature of heteronormative romantic pairing inherently made the boyfriend and girlfriend play narrative problematic in the classroom. On several events, it was noted that Laura would survey peers about who they were in love with (i.e., male and female pairing only) and then highlight the exclusive (one male and one female) nature of the relationship if more than one person loved the same person. For example, during one interaction, the first author observed as Laura orchestrated whom Amber would marry. Laura purposefully went to all of the males and asked if they would marry Amber. More than one male said yes. Laura returned to Amber and informed her that she had a problem because too many boys said yes to her marriage proposal. Laura understood the exclusive nature of the boyfriend and girlfriend pairing in the romantic love narrative and not only excluded Sally from her play space because of it, but also used it as a way to position other children in the classroom. It must be noted that Laura did not do this with same-sex relations. She would play with more than one female and did not “survey” the class to determine if two girls were best friends and then report that there was a problem if a person had more than one best friend. At the beginning of the study, the girlfriend and boyfriend pairings as a romantic love as a play narrative was not recognized because of the implicit nature as well as children’s tendency to hide the play theme away from teachers and adults. The teachers did not define the play narrative as a thread of interest (i.e., an interest in the peer culture that could be brought into the school culture for mediation and support). It was not studied through documentation boards (i.e., a tool for better understanding children’s learning experiences) nor discussed in the weekly curriculum guide sent to parents. Rather, the play narrative was implicitly woven within the daily life of the classroom, and it often became a site of tension between children, parents, and teacher because of the taboo nature of the terms boyfriend and girlfriend in the preschool classroom (Corsaro, 2003). The romantic love theme associated with the girlfriend and boyfriend play theme versus the marriage play theme rests on a prevailing discourse that romantic love is sexual (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992) and the linguistic implication of being boyfriend and girlfriend versus pretending to be married. Marriage, as a pretend play theme, appears to be more centered in fantasy and family play, while being a boyfriend/girlfriend is more closely linked to the present, which may have been the reason why adults were uncomfortable with the position. The children understood that tension existed around this play theme and tended to keep the play on the periphery. In fact, Laura ignored my questions about it when I asked her to tell me more about it. Though the children understood that the teachers and I were aware of these male/female pairings, the children tended to keep it beneath the surface through whispers, by simply ignoring questions, or taking the conversation

Young Children’s Gendered Positioning and Emotional Scenarios in Play Narratives    61

behind the cubby area. It is important to note this did not occur with the first play narrative that focused on the female children being kitties. The teachers, however, did not overtly reject the boyfriend and girlfriend play narrative, nor did they support the heterosexual norms implied within the gendered pairing. In fact, it was noted that there were same-sex parents in the classroom, and when issues around heterosexual marriage arose, it could be contradicted through their example. Thus, teachers did not endorse the heteronormative discourse nor did they reject the boyfriend and girlfriend play narrative, but rather the tension resided in parent reactions that ranged from comments suggesting that the pairings were cute to comments suggesting that it was inappropriate. Teachers, however, suggested that adult conceptions should not be placed onto the children’s positions and viewed this play narrative it as another way of constructing friendship and affiliation in the classroom. Children, however, did not position the boyfriend and girlfriends’ play as simply being friends. For example, after circle time, Erick, Sally, and Laura had been cutting flowers and putting them in vases with the teachers. Laura took (without the teachers’ knowledge) some petals. Laura, holding the petals tightly in her hand, went behind the cubby area. Erick noticed that she had taken the petals and told her, “If you want to be my girlfriend you have to give me some petal flowers,” to which Laura replied, “I don’t want to be your girlfriend. I’ve had you already for a boyfriend.” A few minutes later Erick and Nate had a conversation about being a boyfriend versus being a boy and Nate stated, “A boy is just a boy. A boyfriend is when you are getting married.” As noted in the exchange above between Laura and Erick, the boyfriend and girlfriend role was used as a tool for relational aggression and caused similar tensions related to the dominant discourse of romantic love. This notion is illustrated in the scenario Football Girl, which took place on the playground between Laura and Erick. Football Girl 1

2 3 4 5 6

Laura: Erick do you want to play that you are the football guy and I am the referee Erick: No Laura: and I am the football girl? Erick: No Laura: Why? Erick: You are not my girlfriend (he sits on the bench with his arms crossed)

In line 1, Laura asks Erick if he want to be the football guy. Erick rejects her request and says no in line 2. Laura says she will be the football girl.

62    S. MADRID and L. KATZ

Erick once more says no and Laura asks for an explanation about why he won’t play. In line 6, Erick states he does not want to play because she is not his girlfriend. While this exchange illustrates how children linked their play role to gender (i.e., football guy and football girl), it also illustrates Erick’s concern about his relational status to her (i.e., whether he is her boyfriend), and the role is used as a tool by Erick to deny access to Laura if she is not his (Erick’s) girlfriend. In this brief exchange, Erick is signaling a type of relationship between males and females as well as using the romantic love narrative to negotiate a play space. The important aspect to note is the negotiation of power based on the boyfriend and girlfriend position. Discussion This study posed two questions focusing on young children’s construction of their gendered identities: (1) What are the play narratives that children construct over time and across situations in the early childhood classroom? and (2) How do children construct emotional scenarios and gendered positions through their play roles? In response to the first research question, there were two play narratives that were salient play themes within the daily life of children’s social world in this particular classroom. One narrative focused on girls acting as kitties—an animal that is described in our dominant society as cute, cuddly, and passive. The second narrative, Boyfriend/ Girlfriend, drew upon a dominant discourse based upon heterosexual romantic love, which included rules about exclusivity in the relationship (i.e., one male and one female) and which female was identified as a girlfriend with a particular male—that is, her boyfriend. A distinctive difference between the two play narratives was their relationship to the rest of the classroom culture. The storylines of the boyfriend/ girlfriend play narratives but not of the kitty play narrative interrupted interactions within the rest of the classroom. The one girlfriend/one boyfriend rule was implemented not just with the children in these particular narratives but with many of the other members of the classroom. What is also interesting is that the kitty play narratives were supported in the school curriculum while the boyfriend/girlfriend play narratives seemed to occur within a part of the peer culture of the classroom that was not explicitly supported by the teachers, parents, and some of the children. Although both play narratives were pretend and stereotypical about gender, teachers and parents seemed to accept the nature of the kitty play narratives as a non-threatening form of play, whereas their perceptions of the boyfriend/ girlfriend play narrative seemed to suggest that this type of pretend was not helpful to the children’s development.

Young Children’s Gendered Positioning and Emotional Scenarios in Play Narratives    63

The second question was addressed by how the children used the two play narratives to construct friendships, engage in borderwork between males and females, and take up discourses around specific emotional themes associated with the play scenario (i.e., kitty, girlfriend, and boyfriend). The findings illustrated how the play narratives and roles were gendered as defined by the children. Children determined the roles that males versus females could engage in within the two play narratives. Although the children noted that males and females could take on various roles, they chose to endorse male/female dichotomies. This supported the notion that children engage in “activities that make and strengthen boundaries between girls and boys” (Corsaro, 1997, p. 182). For example, in the kitty play narrative, the roles available to females were based on being princess kitty, sister kitty, mommy kitty, baby kitty, all of which were labeled as a girls only role. Similarly, within the boyfriend and girlfriend play narrative, only females could be girlfriends and only males boyfriends. It was important to look not only at the themes and roles that were constructed and taken up within the play narratives (i.e., kitty, princess, girlfriend), but how children use emotional scenarios to negotiate positioning and power within these play narratives. How did gender “provide for a range of subjectivities for us to take up, allowing individuals to be positioned or to position themselves in a variety of ways” (Blaise, 2005, p. 17)? Females used emotional themes to negotiate power and positioning differently when interacting with males versus females. For example, the boyfriend and girlfriend play narrative was based on a heterosexual discourse that opened up as well as limited the positions that males versus females could take up, which also shaped how males and females negotiated power from these limited positions. Females also illustrated that the gendered roles they created in their play narratives were not static and linear, but rather were flexible and dynamic as they modified their positions to gain access into male play (Davies, 1989; McMurray-Schwartz, 2003). For example, the females in the kitty narrative would often shift their kitty roles into the trapped and lost kitty so that they could enter and engage more easily in superhero play with males. Females did not simply take up these roles and emotional themes, but actively appropriated them within their peer culture as specific roles and emotional themes were used to negotiate entry into male play spaces, as well as to protect their own interactive play space when males and other females tried to gain access. Implications This study demonstrates how young children use dominant gender discourses to explore their own gender identities as well as their gender identities in

64    S. MADRID and L. KATZ

relationship to their female and male peers. Even though these young children drew upon stereotypical ways of being male and female, they used their gender to position themselves for their own social purposes: for example, to gain access into play, to exclude children from play, to create affiliation with a particular group or child, and to practice emotional scenarios. Play in the early childhood classroom provides a space for children to learn how to engage in social relationships and to explore and co-construct the emotional themes associated with their play scenarios. Through their play children were trying out various ways of how to be a boy or a girl, based upon their experiences from their family, community, media, or through their own pretend nature. Positioning themselves in their play narratives for their own social purposes encompassed emotional scenarios as females with control of the narrative. For example, the females who were kitties used their passive role to enter male play and to be rescued and saved. However, even though the role appeared to support female passivity, the females were the ones directing how, where, when and who could be a kitty and save the kitty. These findings have implications not only for creating play spaces but for teachers’ roles in promoting children’s gendered identities. It is important for educators to examine their own biases about play narratives and to focus on how children are using these narratives to achieve their own social and emotional purposes. More importantly, how can early childhood educators provide an environment to let children explore play narratives that might seem to promote gender inequity while also creating new storylines that uncover multiple ways of becoming an emotional being? How can early childhood educators move children’s play narratives to deconstruct and transform dominant discourses while also supporting their social purposes? As early childhood educators continue to promote the importance of play, these questions and others must be pursued to better understand how play can support children’s developing identities. References Blaise, M. (2005). Playing it straight: Uncovering gender discourse in the early childhood classroom. New York: Routledge. Bloome, D., Power-Carter, S., Morton-Christian, B, Otto, S., & Shuart-Farris, N. (2005). Discourse Analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: Microethnographic perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Burr, V. (2003). Social constructionism. New York: Routledge. Cannella, G. (1997). Deconstructing early childhood education: Social justice and revolution. New York: Peter Lang. Christian-Smith, L. (1988). Romancing the girl: Adolescents romance novels and construction of femininity. In L Roman & L. Christian-Smith (Eds.), Becom-

Young Children’s Gendered Positioning and Emotional Scenarios in Play Narratives    65 ing feminine: The politics of popular culture (pp. 76–101). New York: The Falmer Press. Corsaro, W. (1985). Friendships and peer culture in the early year. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Corsaro, W. (1997). The sociology of childhood. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Corsaro, W. (2003). We’re friends right? Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press. Davies, B. (1989). Frog and snails and feminist tales: Preschool children and gender. Sydney, AU: Allen & Unwin. Davies, B. (1998). The politics of category membership in early childhood settings. In Nicoloa Yelland (Ed.) Gender in early childhood (pp. 132–148). London, UK: Routledge. Davies, B. (2000). A body of writing 1990–1999. New York: Alta Mira Press. Davies, B. & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20(1), 43–63. Edwards, C. P. (2007). Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. In R. S. New & M. Cochran (Eds.), Early childhood education: An international encyclopedia (pp. 696–700). Westport, CT: Praeger. Elgas, P., Klein, E., Kantor, R., & Fernie, D. (1988). Play and peer culture: Play styles and object use. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 3(2), 142–153. Fernie, D. E., Davies, B., Kantor, R., & McMurray, P. (1993). Becoming a person in the preschool: creating integrated gender, school culture, and peer culture positionings. Qualitative Studies in Education, 6(2), 95–110. Forman, G. (1999).Video-revisiting. The video camera as a tool of the mind for young children. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 1(2), 1–4. Galbraith, J. (2007). Multiple perspectives on superhero play in an early childhood classroom. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. Dissertation Abstracts International. Gergen, K.J. (1994). Realties and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gergen, K.J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gilbert, P. (1994). “And they lived happily ever after”: Cultural storylines and the construction of gender. In A. H. Dyson & C. Genishi (Eds.), The need for story: Cultural diversity in classroom community (pp. 124–142). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Gilbert, P. & Taylor, S. (1991). Fashioning the feminine: Girls, popular culture, and schooling. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Goodenough, W. H. (1981). Culture, language, and society. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings. Harré, R. (1986). The social construction of emotion. New York: Blackwell. Hendrick, S. & Hendrick, C. (1992). Romantic love. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kantor, R. & Fernie, D. (2003). Becoming ethnographers of an early childhood classroom. In R. Kantor & D. Fernie (Eds.), Early childhood classroom processes (pp. 1–20). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Kulick, D. & Schieffelin, B. (2004). Language socialization. In A. Duranti (Ed), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 349–368). Oxford: Blackwell. Lutz, C. (1988). Unnatural emotion: Everyday sentiments on a Micronesian atoll and their challenge to a western theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

66    S. MADRID and L. KATZ MacNaughton, G. (1998). Improving our gender equity tools. In Nicoloa Yelland (Ed), Gender in early childhood (pp. 150–174). London: Routledge. MacNaughton, G. (2000). Rethinking gender in early childhood education. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. MacNaughton, G. (2005) Doing Foucault in early childhood studies: Applying poststructural ideas. London: Routledge. McMurray-Schwartz, P. (2003). Individual pathways through preschool. In R. Kantor & D. Fernie (Eds.), Early childhood classroom processes (pp. 99–126). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Paley, V. (1981). Wally’s stories: Conversations in the kindergarten. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Shields, S. (2002). Speaking from the heart: Gender and the social meaning of emotion. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Slade, A. (1994). Making meaning and make-believe: Their role in the clinical process. In A. Slade & D. Wolf (Eds.), Children at play: Clinical and developmental approaches to meaning and representation (pp. 105–127). New York: Oxford University Press. Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson. Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Walkerdine, V. (1984). Someday my prince will come. In A. McRobbie & M. Nava (Eds), Gender and generation (pp. 162–184). London: Macmillan. Wohlwend, K.E. (2009). Damsels in discourse: Girls consuming and producing identity texts through Disney princess play. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(1), 57–83.

Chapter 4

May I Still Call You Honey-Man One Child, Vacillating Gender, and the Experiences of Home, School, and Community Robin Fox

This is part of the story of one child (Bryce), the child’s parents (Jackie and Steve), Bryce’s younger brother Marcus, and the community where they live. Bryce was born anatomically a boy. As Bryce entered his preschool years, his mom noticed that he was angered by not having a choice concerning his clothing (only had boys’ clothes as a toddler) and gravitated toward clothing that would be generally described as girls’ clothes, that he often spoke of being a girl or mommy when he grew up and he wished for long hair. These signs, along with some of Bryce’s personality characteristics, led his parents to allow him to make the choice of dressing in girls’ clothing and growing out his hair. This chapter is Bryce’s story—the story of a child negotiating gender and all of the trappings of our culture related to genitalia and gender. In this writing, I refer to Bryce as he because if asked, he Gender and Early Learning Environments, pages 67–82 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

67

68    R. FOX

will say he is a boy but will then state that he feels like a girl. Please note that this would not be the case for all children who are transgender or gender variant; please see Boenke (2003) for a discussion about the proper use of pronouns for people who are transgender. Additionally, there are two websites that offer general terminology and commonly asked questions that would be helpful for anyone not yet familiar with the issues and language surrounding transgender issues (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, n.d.; Safe Zone Tallahassee, Florida, n.d.). In this chapter, I use the word transgender to refer to Bryce’s experience. Other authors might use the term transsexual, although this is an older term and does not have the broadness of the term transgender. Still other authors might use the term gender identity disorder (GID) to describe a child such as Bryce. I use the term transgender rather than the other terms because it is one that Bryce’s mother uses; thus, I am respecting her terminology. In the end, this is the story of one child. It is the story of one child for several reasons. I believe strongly that looking very closely is more important than looking very broadly when conducting research with young children (Graue & Walsh, 1998). Also, in reviewing literature for this chapter (for which there is little) I have found what Bryce appears to be experiencing mirrors to some degree the experience of other young children (Baker, 2002; Brown, 2006; Farrell & Sullivan, 2008; Hoffman, 2007). And finally, this is about one child because I, as a teacher, educator, and researcher, owe this to Bryce. If I write about how we make changes for this one child and my writing is full of passion because of my love for this child and the respect I feel for his family, perhaps others will read my conviction and be empowered to make change. If I were to gather data about the experiences of multiple children, I can write with certainty that there would be less passion because I would be removing myself from the subjects of my research. If this is about Bryce I cannot help but feel compelled to write in a way that is personal and intimate with the end result being one which requires all of us to think about young children and gender differently. We are sitting at our dining room table. Our time together today is ending as it often does by sharing a meal together. Our friends are over with their two children and dinner is over for the two youngest children so I am sitting at the table with my partner; Bryce, who is four years old; and Jackie, Bryce’s mom. We are a captive audience and we are captivated by Bryce. Although only four years old, Bryce has a vocabulary well beyond his years along with comprehension of complex ideas that I have rarely witnessed in my work with young children. He turns to me and asks, “When I grow up can I be a girl?” By this time, Bryce has been asking to wear our daughter’s clothes when he is at our house. At first he would ask to wear her underwear if he had an accident rather than going across the street to get some of his clothes, and then it progressed to asking to put on complete outfits. Our daughter’s

May I Still Call You Honey-Man    69 wardrobe is eclectic and she has everything from “boys’” swimming trunks to frilly dresses and dance costumes. When Bryce wanted or needed to wear some of her clothes, he always chose ones that were either pink or dresses (or both) even though there were many options that would have been considered “boys’” clothing. I am shocked by his question, although in hindsight I am not sure why this came as a surprise. In what seems like long moments I wait for Jackie to respond, but she does not—not this time. I know Jackie has answered this question many times during conversations with Bryce at home. I wait for my partner to respond—my partner, who has degrees in communication, women’s studies and counseling—but she does not. And in those nanoseconds in which I am waiting, I realize he wants the answer from me. The question comes from deep within Bryce, and I believe that it is a question not only of clarity for him but that he is also questioning me and my acceptance of him. Although he cares deeply for my partner, Bryce and I have a connection that is difficult to put into words and even if my partner had answered the question, the question of my acquiescence would not have been answered. My answer is important—I can see that in Bryce’s eyes as he searches my face. And the answer comes easily because I have seen the progression that has taken place related to his gender. I tell him that when he is an adult, doctors can make the changes to his body that would need to be made so he looks the same on the outside as he feels in on the inside. I tell him that his family would help him find doctors who could assist him and that we would all love him throughout the process. And I tell him that until that time he can dress in “girls’” clothes if that is how he feels most comfortable (I say this knowing that his parents have started purchasing clothes that would be considered girls’ clothing). He smiles. A smile that says more than any of his eloquent fouryear-old words could describe. Here Bryce feels safe. And just as quickly as the discussion of transgender started, it ended with Bryce jumping down off the chair to join the other two children as they bounced on the bed. As he walked away I thought of his life and the challenges he will face, his parents’ courage and how much I wanted to make a safer world for Bryce and other children who faced such a gendered world in bodies that didn’t quite fit.

Definitions and Statistics Related to People who are Transgender Gender is not something most people think of on a daily basis. For many people, the body we have connects with the gender we use to define ourselves. Yet others often describe their experience as being trapped in a body that does not connect to their gender (Brown & Rounsley, 1996). In other words, a person may have the outward appearance of being a woman complete with female genitalia but may feel like and perhaps identify with the male gender, thus describing himself as a man. Recently, the term Gender

70    R. FOX

Identity Disorder (GID) has been used as an overarching term to describe people whose mind and body are not in sync in relation to gender. GID is the current term used in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association rather than transgender, transsexual, gender variant, and so on. It is important to note that GID is a controversial diagnosis and implies a disorder. For some in the field of gender studies, the inclusion of GID in the DSM is inappropriate, and movements have been implemented to have it removed. Others wish for the inclusion to continue, as it allows people who are transgender or gender variant to receive services that are covered by insurance such as counseling or surgery to physiologically transition from male to female or vice versa. For a thoughtful discussion related to this topic, see Butler’s (2006) chapter, “Undiagnosing Gender.” The number of people who are transgender is difficult to determine. In the small town where I live, which has approximately 2,000 students in kindergarten through high school, there are two children in the elementary schools who dress (which could be equated to transgender for this age) in clothing that is different than their physiology. Some estimates are one in 500 children are transgender or gender-variant (Brill & Pepper, 2008), which would place the prevalence somewhere between autism, which is approximately one in 150 (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008), and babies born with Down syndrome, which is approximately one in 733 (National Down Syndrome Society, 2008). I share these statistics, not to imply any correlation between transgender, autism, and Down syndrome, but instead to assert that all of these ways of being for children are not uncommon. However, in our homes, schools, and communities, we do not know how to meet the needs of children who are transgender to the same degree as we are able to meet the needs of children with autism and Down syndrome. Meeting the needs of children who are transgender is still not a small undertaking given that gender permeates every facet of our lives— for example, filling out forms, going to the bathroom, choosing clothing, playing sports, forming friendships, and developing romantic relationships. Despite this, if the above listed statistics are even remotely accurate, we have a responsibility to a fairly large population of young children and their families. Are We Ready to Meet the Needs of Bryce in Our Families? It is Christmas and Bryce is almost five years old. The early morning gift opening has proven to be overwhelming and he needs a break. He goes to his room for some alone time and makes decisions about what to wear as the family pre-

May I Still Call You Honey-Man    71 pares to travel to his grandparents for more celebrating. His choice is both a skirt and a dress, and it is clear to his parents that in this he feels comfortable. But Steve is concerned about what his family will say, and in a move that meant more to Jackie than any flowers or gifts ever have, Steve called his parents. The call wasn’t a plea for them to be kind; instead, it was an ultimatum. It was also meant to be a call to let the family know what was going on, and to be fair to them, offering them a chance to think through their response and a heads-up so they wouldn’t be shocked. Steve told them that Bryce was in a dress and that is the way he feels most comfortable. Steve wanted to know if his parents would be accepting, and they said that they would. He continued to affirm that if anyone said anything to make Bryce feel bad about his choice, they would all leave. Jackie said the day went fine and not only did no one say anything to make him feel bad, but his grandma noted how beautiful he looked. On a separate occasion on a day he had on a dress, another adult family member told Bryce, “It makes me uncomfortable when you wear those kinds of clothes.” During this exchange, Bryce’s parents were not around, and they only heard about this from Bryce later. Just as it is important to validate children’s feelings, we must also acknowledge the discomfort many adults feel regarding issues of gender and, in particular, transgender. However, we, as the adults must find other adults to speak with regarding our concerns. Families, both immediate and extended, must try diligently to abide by the wishes of the parents. Comments like those previously mentioned can only add to the confusion the child may already be feeling.

Bryce’s parents have made a choice to allow him the freedom to wear the clothes he chooses and to grow his hair. They buy barrettes and jewelry that he proudly wears. He is often seen carrying some kind of purse, and his parents purchase toys that are of interest to Bryce, including items that would be considered both girl and boy toys. However, these decisions did not come without much contemplation, differences of opinion, and concern. As Jackie, a former kindergarten teacher who doesn’t currently work outside of the home, was able to see the signs that Bryce was identifying with females, their clothes and persona, she noted that when Bryce wore clothes that were girls’ clothes, he appeared to be more at ease. For Steve, the acceptance has taken more time. There are multiple explanations for the differences between Jackie and Steve’s ease in accepting Bryce’s desire to wear girl’s clothes. Perhaps the acceptance took more time for Steve because he is a male and there is much less latitude for gender variance for men than there is for women. Or it could be that Steve works long hours in a family-owned business and wasn’t able to experience all of the slight nuances that Jackie observed. Or it could be that although Steve was accepting of friends who are lesbian, it is more difficult to be accepting/understanding of transgender individuals, especially when the individual happens to be your own child. But perhaps the answer is not complex at all—perhaps Steve feared for Bryce’s safety and happiness, and he needed time to grieve

72    R. FOX

the loss of what he expected from this child, that the child he saw as a boy didn’t quite fit his expectations. It should be noted that Marcus, Bryce’s younger brother, is also allowed the same choices to explore and experiment with clothing, hair, fingernail polish, and so on. Jackie and Steve do this so that Bryce doesn’t receive additional attention for his choices and to afford the same freedoms for Marcus regarding his choices about gender. However, Marcus does not have the same deep feelings and desires, and these explorations usually pass quickly. He does not appear to receive the same peace and relief from those outward accouterments that would be considered girls’ artifacts. In the literature about young children who are transgender there are two main courses of action that families can follow; both have strong supporters (Spiegel, 2008a). The two approaches are (1) to either insist that the child live the gender of his body—and therapy is a part of this approach—or (2) to allow a child to live the gender she feels is her true self. In the latter course, therapy is required only if the child and/or family needs assistance coming to terms with the issues related to transgender. Therapy to fix the child is not a part of this approach. Two of the leading experts in the field of gender and children are Dr. Ken Zucker and Diane Ehrensaft. Dr. Zucker supports therapy in which children are forced to act in a way that is congruent with biological gender of their bodies. There is widespread disdain for this type of therapy among those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, who note that this approach does not accept the child and forces what is not natural for the transgender child. However, Zucker’s Toronto-based practice is thriving with a long waiting list. Diane Ehrensaft believes that forcing the child to be someone he/she is not is detrimental. She also believes that the use of therapy implies that this should be corrected. Both camps have strong supporters and adamant detractors. A new trend in treatment offered by Dr. Norman Spack, an endocrinologist at Children’s Hospital in Boston, for youth who are transgender is to delay puberty (Spiegel, 2008b). The goal of delaying puberty through hormone treatment is that the child will not have to live in a body that is even more unlike the gender they believe themselves to be (Kennedy, 2008). Additionally, after this treatment has been used for several years, the child can begin to receive hormone treatments that will assist in their development of their true gender. The halting of puberty does not stop the growth of the child and, in fact, might make transitioning from one gender to the other easier. For example, the biological male will not have biological traits that are considered male; for example, height growth will be slower but not stopped, the Adam’s apple will not develop, and facial hair will not develop. But the question remains—are families ready for children who are transgender? My answer is that most are not. If we are living in the United States, we have been indoctrinated into a gendered, heteronormative culture

May I Still Call You Honey-Man    73

where one of the first questions we ask when a child is born, or even before, is whether the child is a girl or a boy. Gender is assumed to connect with the genitalia, and when it doesn’t, the vast majority of us are ill equipped to deal with the needs of these children. If the children are ours rather than a child we are teaching or a child on the soccer team, the issues form deeper grooves in our already-tenuous beliefs about how to parent. Whether a family decides to accept the desires of a child to assume the other gender or the family decides to actively seek therapy to assist their child in conforming to their biological gender, much more support is needed for the family along with empathy from others in the community. Are We Ready to Meet the Needs of Bryce in Our Communities? It is a typical Friday night for our family. After negotiating work and childcare throughout the week, we are now ready to have some family time, but not before my partner and I get much-needed haircuts. We have lived in this community for many years, as has our hair dresser, Amy. We share some of the same friends, so much of our time together is catching up on what is happening with people we know. There is no one else in the salon, but when Amy starts to ask about Bryce she lowers her voice to a whisper. She starts with, “I heard Bryce is dressing like a girl.” My immediate response, although it is quickly tempered, is that of anger. There is a tone to the statement that quickly makes me defensive. Here is someone who has been a part of our lives, who has accepted my partner and me along with our children seemingly without hesitation. And I wonder to myself why a two-mom family is so much easier to accept than a child being who he truly is. But I must remember that Amy is only hearing the latest piece of a long journey for Bryce and his family. Does she think that this decision was easy? That it was rash? That Jackie and Steve haven’t really thought this through? I calmly explain all of this to Amy. I explain that when Bryce started dressing this way he appeared less anxious, calmer, and certainly happier. The next day at gymnastics I tell Jackie about the conversation, and she states that she knows there are many people talking about Bryce and their decision. Having people taking an interest in you and your family is both a perk and a shortcoming of living in a small community. I believe that Bryce and his family have given this community a gift—the gift of total acceptance of a child, even when it is difficult to understand and wonder how the gift will be received as Bryce maneuvers through this community.

One of the ways a community as a whole can welcome young children who are transgender is to be cognizant of the number of times a person’s gender is questioned, required, or assumed. Building planners can make certain that there are bathrooms that are not just family bathrooms but also ones that are single-stall bathrooms. The directors of Park and Recreation

74    R. FOX

programs can refrain from asking a person’s gender unless they can explain why such an attribute is necessary for their programming. And subsequently, community-based club and sports programs need to think beyond the anatomical gender of a child in making decisions concerning participation. For example, if Bryce wants to join Girl Scouts when he is older, will he be able to? Or if he wants to join the girls’ softball league, will he be accepted? On a larger scale, restaurants that give toys to young children could have their employees explain the toys and ask which one a child would like rather than asking if the child is a boy or girl. Stores could have dressing rooms that are single stall rather than a series of small rooms within a larger space which is designated for women or men, girls or boys. Clothing sections could be more inclusive of garments that reflect all children. These could be similar to the section for infants where, even though there are clearly pink clothes and blue clothes, there is a smattering of green and yellow for instances when the person buying the gift does not yet know the gender or for people like us who seek out clothing other than pink or blue for our children. Are We Ready to Meet the Needs of Bryce in Our Schools? Bryce had been wearing girls’ clothes at home, and he asked if he could wear a dress to school midway through his second year of preschool. At the time he was in a parents’ cooperative preschool three mornings a week. As it was a parents’ cooperative preschool, there were family (usually parent) volunteers on a daily basis. Jackie talked to the teachers often as she dropped off and picked up her two children. She was also active in the classroom, going beyond the required number of volunteer hours necessary for her children’s continued enrollment, and Jackie was a member of the parent advisory board for the preschool. As a former kindergarten teacher and an involved parent, I believe she had gained the respect of the teachers at the preschool. Rather than have Bryce appear at school with a dress on without letting the teachers know, Jackie decided to talk with them prior to Bryce’s debut in a dress. I am not sure Jackie was prepared for the response she received. One of the teachers shared with her that she had a brother who was gay and didn’t feel safe enough to tell his parents, only “coming out” after both of his parents had passed away. The teacher told Jackie that she was doing the right thing by letting Bryce express who he was and that she only wished her brother had had a similar experience. Bryce started kindergarten a few weeks ago. At the time of enrollment Jackie investigated the possible teachers and determined that a somewhat recent graduate of a teacher preparation program would be the best fit. In part it was because Jackie knew this teacher, but it was also because the teacher taught in a kindergarten/first grade class in which the children would be with her

May I Still Call You Honey-Man    75 for two years. The benefits of this for Bryce, as Jackie thought it through, were that he would have the same teacher for two years and she could get to know him, thus relieving him of the beginning-of-the-year anxiety for first grade. Also, it allowed a group of children who were a year older than he the experience of getting to know him and perhaps befriending him. And finally, I noted earlier that Bryce has quite an extensive vocabulary—he was also able to read before beginning kindergarten—and it was important to Jackie and Steve that Bryce not become bored in school. So Jackie and Steve met with the teacher, the school counselor, and principal. Prior to the meeting Jackie gave the teacher some information about children who are transgender. During the meeting, Jackie and Steve gave the teacher background information concerning where Bryce was on his journey of understanding gender. They discussed their beliefs regarding gender and, specifically, the development of Bryce’s gender. Jackie and Steve discussed language use with the teacher, making the request that the children not be addressed as “boys and girls.” They also requested that the teacher not separate children based on gender. Although Bryce may “feel like a girl,” he is well aware that his body has the parts of a boy. Using gender as a basis for categorizing children or addressing them could cause Bryce, and perhaps other children, discomfort. Jackie shared a children’s book with the teacher about a child who is transgender and, subsequently, the teacher read it to the class. Not only had the teacher read the material, but she came with questions and possible solutions to some of the situations Bryce would encounter. She had an idea about the use of the bathroom, determining that Bryce would be allowed to use the single-stall bathroom in the classroom while all of the other children used the multi-stalled, gender-specific bathrooms in the hall. Although the teacher came up with ideas for making Bryce feel welcomed, there were no policies in place related to children who are transgender prior to his enrollment. It was up to Bryce’s parents to ensure that his needs were met by the school personnel. Perhaps this is to be expected, as I explain in the following paragraphs, since teachers have had little or no training in the areas of students who are LGBT, and in particular transgender. Additionally, the heteronormativity of the schools permeates the schools, as evidenced in practice and policy (Fox, 2007). Statistics at the beginning of this chapter compared to the number of children who have a form of autism or Down syndrome to the number of children who are transgender. While we are preparing our teachers, even “regular” educators, to work with children who have autism, we haven’t made the time to learn how to meet the needs of children who are transgender, even though there are significant numbers of these children.

In a study I conducted, I asked teachers and administrators of early childhood programs about their preparation in relation to LGBT issues in school settings (Fox, 2006). All but one stated they had not had any training in this area. The one exception stated she had some pre-service training on this

76    R. FOX

topic and noted that it was in one of my classes in her undergraduate program that the training took place. Knowing this, I knew exactly how much training she received regarding transgender issues, and that was none, since at the time the only discussions I was having with my students related to parents who are lesbian or gay. No consideration was given to the lived experiences of either parents or children who are transgender. LGBT-related issues have infiltrated discussions aimed at students in middle and high schools, and there have been some inroads made regarding how to welcome parents who are lesbian and gay into our schools. But the area of transgender issue still appears to be somewhat uncharted, especially in elementary schools and early childhood settings (Griffin & Ouellett, 2003). I think this dearth of information has occurred for several reasons. Connecting T to LGB to form LGBT or GLBT has some people in the field of early childhood education and elementary education feeling as if this is an area that does not need to be addressed. Since lesbian, gay, and bisexual refer to a person’s sexual orientation and that development may not fully come to fruition until a child has passed through the elementary school, a teacher or administrator might also believe that any issues related to transgender might also occur in the middle and high school years. However, the development of gender occurs in the years prior to kindergarten (Chrisman & Couchenour, 2002). Given the myriad of personal stories of people who are transgender and who knew by the time they were entering kindergarten they were located in a body that did not connect with the gender they were believed to be, it would make sense that the idea of transgender should be included in discussions for preservice and inservice teachers in early and elementary education. Although the idea of transgender and children who are transgender has not been a part of the training for teachers and administrators in early childhood education, it is time that we made it a part of this training. I believe it is essential that every teacher be given the tools to work with all children, which include children who are transgender. There are very different perspectives on LGBT issues in the schools across the country; for example, Massachusetts’ Department of Education has a statewide curriculum for teachers regarding lesbian and gay youth, while in Alabama any mention of homosexuality in the schools must also include a statement regarding the unacceptable nature of this lifestyle and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense (Szalacha, 2004). Despite these differing views, teachers should be properly prepared to work with children who are LGBT as well as with their families. Brill and Pepper (2008) have written an exemplary text appropriate for use in teacher preparation. The book includes chapters on child development regarding transgender issues, ways to cope and thrive as a family, issues that arise for children who are transgender and their health care pro-

May I Still Call You Honey-Man    77

viders, and a chapter on working with the schools. Additionally, the authors offer realistic and forthright suggestions to school personnel. In their discussion concerning personal beliefs or philosophies of teachers regarding children who are transgender, the authors point out that there isn’t a place for these if they contradict the child’s right to an appropriate education in a safe environment. In my opinion, one section of the Brill and Pepper chapter on education is of concern. The authors begin their list of suggestions at the kindergarten level and state that “if a preschool proves a poor fit, parents usually have the option to take their child, and their dollars, elsewhere” (Brill & Pepper, 2008, p. 155). This comment reveals a limited understanding of preschools. Further, there is no discussion about childcare. While some families may have the option of finding another preschool, this is a rarity, especially for those families who have their children enrolled in a state-funded preschool. Additionally, there are seldom multiple options for families who use childcare, and those options dwindle for families living in small towns, families with limited incomes, or families looking to find high quality childcare. Although Brill and Pepper (2008) do not appear to have a clear understanding of early childhood settings, they do offer a succinct list of things school personnel can do to make the school welcoming to children who are transgender. The following abbreviated list of suggestions for supporting children who are transgender could easily be administered in an early childhood program as well as an elementary school. The full list includes more detail than is included here: • • • • • • • • • • •

Create a supportive organizational culture Adopt zero tolerance for discrimination Update policies and forms Honor preferred names and pronouns Develop guidelines for transgender students Provide staff training Provide parent training Provide student education Ensure bathroom safety for all children Document harassment for gender-variant students Provide resources and support for families with gender-variant children • Conduct a gender sensitivity inventory of your school (pp. 163–178) In reference to the third item, which relates to forms generated by the school personnel, I would take the authors’ ideas further. They suggest the person completing the form “check the boxes that apply to you” (Brill & Pepper, 2008, p. 165) and then have listed male, female, and transgender. I

78    R. FOX .

would prefer a form that requests information in this manner: Gender Identity with a large space to follow. In this way it is left open-ended. If the form developers feel that additional information is needed, an asterisk could be placed after gender identity and an explanation could be offered such as “we wish to honor the gender identity of all of the children in our schools and fully recognize that many, but not all children have a gender identity which is the same as their sex. This space is offered to families to explain their child’s gender and/or sex” (Brill & Pepper, p. 165). Lesser, Burt, and Gehaw (2005) offered a curriculum focused on the early childhood educator. Although much of the curriculum is targeted at adults who are LGBT, there are many ideas that can easily be incorporated to welcome children who are transgender into the schools. So, May I Still Call You Honey Man? After Bryce had been dressing in girls’ clothes for some time and I had been working hard not to use the pronoun he both when I was around him and when I spoke of him, I realized I was still calling him Honey Man. In my family it had been a term of endearment for my brother, and when Bryce was born it simply seemed to fit him. However, it occurred to me that it might be making him uncomfortable; it also reminded me of how many things are simply taken for granted regarding gender and young children. When asked, Bryce told me he would like it if I continued to call him Honey Man because I didn’t use that name for anyone else. I explained that just because I called him that it didn’t mean I assumed he would be a man since he had told me often that he wanted to be a woman when he grew up. And so what do I wish for this honey man? Regarding his family, I do not wish anything different, as I believe they are doing what is in his best interest and supporting his feelings. They are teaching him tools to help him when he is teased or when people ask questions out of curiosity, ignorance, or hate. I do wish that there were more family counselors trained in the area of transgender issues related to early childhood so that when families like Bryce’s seek out guidance in supporting their child, that support is available. When Bryce’s family made an appointment with a family counselor, it was clear she had no experience in this area. This does not seem to be atypical as evidenced from stories of other families and a family counselor (Saeger, 2006). From the school personnel, I wish for acceptance of all children like Bryce. I wish for a day when children in kindergartens are not separated by boys and girls, where children sing The Farmer in the Dell and a child like Bryce can be chosen as the wife without question or ridicule, where a child’s gender can be more broadly defined than a simple checkmark in a

May I Still Call You Honey-Man    79

box, and where the whole child is celebrated for the gifts he brings to the classroom. The broader community is the area that is of greatest concern for me regarding children who are transgender, both when they are children and throughout their lives. I wish for a day when unisex bathrooms, dressing rooms, and locker rooms will be available in public spaces, where the gender of people who wish to marry will not be questioned, where we will develop new pronouns to fully include all people, and where people like Bryce are able to openly and freely explain their gender without harassment. And finally, it would be my hope that someday all children, those like Bryce and those whose gender and sex align with each other, have the opportunity to rest in their overly academic kindergarten classrooms and hear songs like the Flirtations’ Everything Possible: We have cleared off the table The leftovers saved Washed the dishes, and put them away I have told you a story And tucked you in tight At the end of your knockabout day As the moon sets its sail To carry you to sleep Over the midnight sea I will sing you a song no one sang to me May it keep you good company You can be anybody that you want to be You can love whomever you will You can travel any county where your heart leads And know I will love you You can live by yourself You can gather friends around You can choose one special one But the only measure of your words and your deeds Will be the love you leave behind when you’re gone. Some girls grow up strong and gold Some boys are quiet and kind Some race on ahead, some follow behind Some grow in their own space and time Some women love women And some men love men Some raise children, and some never do

80    R. FOX

You can dream all the day, never reaching the end Of everything possible for you. Don’t be rattled by names, by taunts or games, But seek our spirits true If you give your friends the best part of yourself They will give the same back to you. You can be anybody that you want to be You can love whomever you will You can travel any country where your heart leads And know I will love you still You can live by yourself You can gather friends around You can choose one special one But the only measure of your words and your deeds Will be the love you leave behind when you’re gone. Oh yes, the love you leave behind when you’re gone. (Small, 1992; used with permission by Fred Small) Author’s Note In the draft of this chapter I used the term choices in regard to Bryce and his gender development. Jackie read the draft and corrected my verbiage. She changed the word from choices to feelings and it was clear to me that although I have spent much time thinking about issues of sexual orientation and gender related to early childhood education, there is still much that I am learning. I wish to thank Jackie and Steve, and in particular Bryce, for allowing me the freedom to make these mistakes in my crossing to celebrate all children. This article is dedicated to all of the children who are on a journey to understand their gender and to the families and school personnel who are helping pave the way on this unchartered voyage. References Baker, J. M. (2002). How homophobia hurts children: Nurturing diversity at home, at school, and in the community. New York: Harrington Park Press. Boenke, M. (2003, July). Darn those new names and pronouns. Retrieved August 3, 2008, from http://community.pflag.org/NEWCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=704& srcid=700 Brill, S. & Pepper, R. (2008). The transgender child: A handbook for families and professionals. San Francisco: Cleis Press Inc.

May I Still Call You Honey-Man    81 Brown, M.L. & Rounsley, C.A. (1996). True selves: Understanding transsexualism for families, friends, coworkers, and helping professionals. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brown, P. L. (2006, December 2). Supporting boys or girls when the line isn’t clear. The New York Times. Retrieved August 4, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/ 2006/12/02/us/02child.html Butler, J. (2006). Undiagnosing gender. In P. Currah, R.M. Juang, & S. Price Minter (Eds.), Transgender Rights (pp. 274–298). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008, January 30). Autism information center: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved August 4, 2008, from http://cdc.gov Chrisman, K. & Couchenour, D. (2002). Healthy sexuality development: A guide for early childhood educators and families. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Farrell, J. & Sullivan, J. (2008, May 3). School challenge: Transgender student is age 9. The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 4, 2008, from http://articles. philly.com/2008-05-03/news/25261196_1_school-challenge-transgenderguidance-counselor/2 Fox, R. K. (2006). Listening to silences and whispers of early childhood educators who care for children with parents who are lesbian or gay. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Fox, R. K. (2007). One of the hidden diversities in schools: Parents who are lesbian or gay. Re-Examining Diversity Issues in Early Childhood Education, Childhood Education Annual Theme Issue 2007, 83(5), 277–281. Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. (n.d.). Transgender glossary of terms. Retrieved September 11, 2008, from http://www.glaad.org/media/ guide/transfocus.php Graue, M. E. & Walsh, D.J. (1998). Studying children in context: Theories, methods, and ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Griffin, P., & Ouellett, M. (2003). From silence to safety and beyond: Historical trends in addressing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender issues in K–12 schools. Equity and Excellence in Education, 36(2), 106–114. Hoffman, S. (2007, April 8). What’s the proper parental response when faced with a kid who’s gender variant? San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved September 11, 2008, from http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-04-08/living/17238254_1_girlieteach-pink Kennedy, P. (2008, March 30). Q & A with Norman Spack: A doctor helps children change their gender. The Boston Globe. Retrieved September 11, 2008, from http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/30/qa_with_ norman_spack/ Lesser, L. K., Burt, T., & Gehaw, A. (2005). Making room in the circle: Lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender families in early childhood settings. San Rafael, CA: Parent Services Project. National Down Syndrome Society. (2008). Down syndrome fact sheet. Retrieved September 11, 2008, from http://www.ndss.org Saeger, K. (2006). Finding our way: Guiding a young transgender child. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 2(3/4), 207–245.

82    R. FOX Safe Zone Tallahassee, Florida. (n.d.). Definitions & common questions about transgendered people. Retrieved September 11, 2008, from http://safezone.fsu.edu/ guide/transgender_faq.pdf Small, F.D. (1992). Everything’s possible. D/B/A Pine Barrens Music. Spiegel, A. (2008a, August 3). Parents consider treatment to delay son’s puberty: New therapy would buy time to resolve gender crisis. National Public Radio. Retrieved September 14, 2008, from http://www.npr.org Spiegel, A. (2008b, May 7). Two families grapple with sons’ gender preferences: Psychologist take radically different approached in therapy. National Public Radio. Retrieved from September 14, 2008, http://www.npr.org Szalacha, L. A. (2004). Educating teachers on LGBTQ issues: A review of research and program evaluations. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 1(4), 67–79.

Chapter 5

On Being a Boy or a Girl in Mrs. Sanders’ First Grade Classroom Paula P. Guerra Lombardi Andrea S. Foster

A well-known and much-treasured nursery rhyme reflects society’s perceptions of the substance of boys and girls: “What are little boys are made of? Snips and snails and puppy dog tails,” and, “What are little girls are made of? Sugar and spice and everything nice!” This rhyme assumes that males and females are different indeed, implying that even their abilities and interests may differ. Such societal views lend to the perpetual perception that, based merely on gender, the child’s potential, interests, and capabilities are understood and can be predicted. This view is inaccurate, particularly as it relates to mathematics and science. According to the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, “Knowing someone is a male tells us little about whether his math skills reflect those of Einstein or a math phobic” (Campbell & Storo, 1996, p. 1). Gender differences are assiduously identified, analyzed, scrutinized, and described in research journals and special news reports (Mead, 2006). In these reports, gender myths, stereotypes, and differences are frequently Gender and Early Learning Environments, pages 83–94 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

83

84    P. P. GUERRA LOMBARDI and A. S. FOSTER

challenged and dispelled. Within the past 20 years, researchers have discovered that girls as a group and boys as a group are much more alike than they are different (Campbell & Storo, 1994.) For example, the Associated Press in July 2008 reported that a recent study in Science concluded that when it comes to math, girls are just as talented as boys. In the largest study of its kind, a meta-analysis of 100 gender and math studies published from 1963–1988, girls measured up to boys in every grade from 2nd to 11th (Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 2008). Yet parents and teachers persist in thinking that boys are simply better at math. Girls tend to grow up accepting this view, and, thus, they may avoid harder mathematics classes. Several questions emerge when considering gender and schooling. In what ways is the schooling experience different for boys and for girls? Does this experience affect their development and achievement? How are early educational experiences related to the choices boys and girls make regarding courses they take and careers they choose? It is important to begin to investigate where and how gender identity in math and science is established and to consider the long-term impact of early classroom experiences. Gender Differences in Mathematics and Science Gender differences in mathematics and science performance and ability remain a concern as scientists seek to address the underrepresentation of women at the highest levels of mathematics, physical sciences, and engineering. Stereotypes that girls and women lack mathematical ability persist and are widely held by parents and teachers (Hyde, Lindberg, Linn, Ellis, & Williams, 2008). Meta-analytic findings from the early nineties (Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990) indicated that gender differences in math performance in the general population were trivial. However, measureable differences existed for complex problem solving beginning in the high school years (favoring males), which might forecast the underrepresentation of women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) careers (Boaler, 2002; Clewell & Campbell, 2002; Hyde, Lindberg, et al., 2008). Although the enrollment of women in graduate science and engineering has increased, women remain underrepresented (Clewell & Campbell, 2002). Fennema, Carpenter, Jacobs, Franke, and Levi (1998) concluded that the one difference between the way boys and girls learn math and science is that girls use more taught strategies and boys use more invented strategies. The ways in which boys and girls are exposed to mathematics and science instruction seem to be different (Battey, Kafai, Nixon, & Kao, 2007; Boaler, 2002; Clewell & Campbell 2002; Fennema & Carpenter, 1998). This research raises more questions: Do girls and boys follow differing patterns

On Being a Boy or a Girl in Mrs. Sanders’ First Grade Classroom     85

in acquiring mathematical skills? If differences exist, are those differences attributed to the nature of girls and boys? According to Clewell and Campbell (2002), “Several studies have suggested that within the classroom, boys and girls receive different educations. Researchers have attributed the differential treatment of girls and boys by their teachers to different expectations of students based on gender” (p. 267). As for girls, Battey, Kafai, Nixon, and Kao (2007) stated: “Teachers are often part of girl’s first experiences with formal science and mathematics; therefore, they are integral to the relationships girls develop with STEM” (p. 222). The relationship between the classroom teacher and her students is a significant one. In fact, among college students, majors in elementary education describe the highest levels of anxiety and worry about the prospect of doing math (Hyde et al., 2008). Of additional concern, research has shown that girls are more likely to model their behavior after adult females than males. Beilock, Gunderson, Ramirez, and Levine (2009) found that female teachers’ discomfort with math encourages girls in early grades to embrace the stereotype that girls do not deal with numbers as well as do boys. Girls who internalize the negative type casting score lower on math achievement tests, on average, than girls who do not. Since women make up more than 90% of the U.S. population of elementary school teachers, this stereotyping can have devastating results. The focus of this chapter is how boys and girls from a first grade urban classroom build differing relationships with their teacher and receive different treatment in the classroom. In this chapter, we report observations of a first grade teacher, Mrs. Sanders, and her interactions with boys and girls in her classroom. We observed differences in the relationships the teacher had with boys and girls and discuss the impact and implications of such differences on the students’ overall school experience and future interest in mathematics and science. The Classroom Context and the Participants The case reported in this chapter is based on observations made in Ms. Sanders’ first grade classroom in a school situated in a large metropolitan urban area in the southwestern United States. The population of the school is mostly Latino from low socioeconomic status families, with two-thirds English language learners (ELL). The teachers in the school recently participated in an NSF-funded mathematics professional development project. The primary participant in the study is Mrs. Sanders, a middle-aged, white woman who is enthusiastic and caring about her students. At the beginning of the year, the group of students consisted of 13 boys and 8 girls, and by the end of the year, due to mobility issues, the class consisted of 12 boys and

86    P. P. GUERRA LOMBARDI and A. S. FOSTER

6 girls. The students ranged in age from 5 to 7 years. Only two students did not speak Spanish as their first language. There is another important participant in this study—a woman that we refer to as the helper. Her role was to assist a special needs student in the room. She is a young Latina woman who has some experience working with children and is pursuing her bachelor’s degree. Mrs. Sanders demonstrated that she wants the best for all her students, boys and girls alike. The following passage characterizes how she created a safe and welcoming environment for her students. I try to make it more of an atmosphere where you can sit in bean bag chairs, you can sit on the floor, you can sit on the tables, wherever they are the most comfortable, you don’t have to sit right here. I try to . . . specially knowing that they get up and move around a lot. I mean I try to make them know that they have to stay seated, I hope they know by now, this far on the year, but other times I want them to be comfortable to learn. ‘Cause some kids maybe don’t do so well sitting on their tables all day long, writing or reading or doing those things, so they have the bean bag chairs, or if they want to sit on the floor. You know . . . that kind of thing. [Interview Notes, 02/17/08]

When Mrs. Sanders described her class, she mentioned that she had more boys than girls, and that the boys were “rough and tough.” The boys tend to be a little more . . . rough and tough (making face), although is not necessarily the word I am looking for? They just . . . The girls . . . Ah . . . The boys overpower the girls sometimes, so the girls tend to be a little quieter. I have a couple that you know, raise their hands, one in particular, that will . . . But I think sometimes the girls are a little quieter because of all of the boys. [Interview Notes, 02/17/08]

Mrs. Sanders’ descriptions of the young boys in her class typically reflected their unruly and oftentimes rowdy behavior. Her boys were described as loud, noisy, and in need of more social skills. Her boys did not want to share, especially with the girls, nor did they want to stay in their seats. Mrs. Sanders mentioned how the boys have a tendency to overpower the girls. She referred to her boys’ intensity each time she reflected on how her students related to one another. Mrs. Sanders usually seemed perplexed when asked about how she handled the power situations in her classroom, particularly when it came to adjusting and modifying her instructional decisions. The only time I adjust my instruction would be for, hum, a student who had an Individual Education Plan, like Israel, or you know, special needs. And even if they don’t have an IEP if I see that they are really, really struggling I’ll adjust my instruction for them. [Interview Notes, 03/11/08]

On Being a Boy or a Girl in Mrs. Sanders’ First Grade Classroom     87

Mrs. Sanders’ comment indicates that gender equity issues are not necessarily considered in her classroom. Mrs. Sanders did explain that she usually pairs boys up with girls to encourage their working together. She explained that for the boys who “cause more trouble,” and who struggle socially, she chooses to let them work alone. The pair-share strategy did not work for these boys. One of the boys, who did not want to work with anyone according to Mrs. Sanders, was “punished” by sitting at a table by himself. In spite of his banishment from the rest of the class, he seemed to be very proud of his private little table. He even reminded Mrs. Sanders to call on his table as she selected volunteers to participate in the lesson. He blurted out that he was sitting at table “six and a half.” From his vantage point, he could watch what was going on at the computers. He jumped out of his seat on many occasions to stand next to his classmates who were working at the computers. Mrs. Sanders rarely acknowledged this disruptive behavior. Table “six and a half” was out of direct line sight of the teacher and teacher’s desk, so most of the time Mrs. Sanders could not see what was going on. Perhaps this is an example of how boys seem to get away with things just by being boys. In some ways this boy was allowed to use his punishment as an opportunity to showcase his power over the classroom. In Mrs. Sanders’ classroom, boys demanded more attention from the teacher by frequently asking for help and standing and walking around the classroom more frequently than did girls. In contrast, the girls generally remained quiet and in their places. While girls sometimes stood up and walked around, they did stay in their seats more than the boys did. It also appeared that girls in Mrs. Sanders’ classroom received less praise because they were typically doing what they were supposed to do. It was expected that girls behave according to Mrs. Sanders’ classroom rules. If they did not, they were reprimanded. If girls did follow the rules, there was no need to draw attention to this because it was expected behavior. When the girls needed help, they were more likely to line up for assistance from the helper than from Mrs. Sanders. Mrs. Sanders described the girls as having “a lot of drama.” I have six girls. They are good . . . We have some “outside of the classroom” drama. “She doesn’t want to be my friend. She is talking about me,” and I can’t stand that. (laughs) “Ok girls, let’s work this out.” But . . . They are good. Leonor talks a lot. She comes to me with stories. Discipline wise they seem good. Last week was an off week and they were fighting with each other, they didn’t want to be friends! And that was drama. It was just drama. [Interview Notes, 02/17/08]

Girls in Mrs. Sanders’ classroom were described by their teacher as holding long-term grudges against each other, unlike boys.

88    P. P. GUERRA LOMBARDI and A. S. FOSTER The thing I notice with the boys, it’s that if they make a fight with each other during recess then 10 minutes later they are friends. The girls drag it out forever. Day after day after day. Last week was so much drama with these girls. Day after day after day someone was doing something. Boys, unless they find some rare thing that they fight over forever, they are just like “oh yeah we weren’t talking, but now we are friends again.” I don’t know what . . . That was interesting. (. . .) There was a research study done and it went to the preschool setting . . . Even then, at 4 . . . 3 and 4 years old girls were more manipulative. All of them had that little “clique,” even at that young age. They knew how to manipulate a situation, and they didn’t see it with boys as much. [Interview Notes; 02/17/08]

I observed that the girls were more than willing to conform to classroom procedures and activities and to do what the teacher asked them to do. They appeared to have a good idea of Mrs. Sander’s classroom rules. Whereas the boys, while knowing the rules, often times chose to ignore them. The Classroom Vignettes In the following section, three classroom vignettes are described. Each illustrates situations that were typical occurrences in this classroom. Gender inequities appear to be prevalent in the examples. The names of the children have been changed to assure privacy to the participants of the project. This first vignette illustrates Mrs. Sanders’ inadequacy with regard to addressing a female student’s inability to see the blackboard. The teacher wrongfully praises male students. This sends a message that disruptive boys get more attention than girls do in her classroom. Vignette #1: The Valentine Sentence Inconsistency It is early in the morning as I arrive at the class and find the first graders sitting on the floor staring at the television. The art teacher is not coming, so they are using art time to watch a cartoon about the rain. The children are half asleep at this time of the day. This would have probably helped the art teacher get them to just copy every line she makes in the front of the class as I have observed her doing before, and follow the precise instructions on even what color to use for every single point. Instead, the television will keep them quiet during this morning without “art.” Once the video is over, the students are directed to start working on different tasks. It is Valentine’s season, so they will be completing a booklet about the celebration. Before the children begin the Valentine’s project, the teacher explains to the students that first they must write three sentences

On Being a Boy or a Girl in Mrs. Sanders’ First Grade Classroom     89

about books they read during the year. To help them remember the books, she writes the titles on a small whiteboard on one side of the classroom. All the children want to be done with this task so they can color, cut, and paste the Valentine’s packets. Fher and Lauro, who are described by the teacher as smart, cute, and noisy, stand up right in front of the board where the book titles are written. Fher is a loving little guy who always wants to give a hug to whoever comes to the room, and always volunteers for whatever work has to be done. He is also the one that I have seen requesting the teacher’s attention and help more than anyone else, as the teacher also agreed. Lauro is a retained student. He is charming and talkative. His loud voice gets him in trouble all the time, but he always looks back with a smile that says “I promise I won’t do it again,” and he gets away with it a good number of times. The two boys are standing there because they want to copy the titles so they can start writing their sentences. Of course they could do this from their seats, but Lauro likes doing things his way, and Fher follows along for the extra attention. Unfortunately, they are blocking the view for many of the students in the room. They are standing there and they have not mastered the art of writing yet, so it is taking them more time than one would have thought. Maria, a quiet and smiley girl, wants to know the titles too. She waits at first, looking at the back of her two classmates. She knows the teacher said she prefers students to be seated and not walking around the class. Not only has she heard her saying that many times, but she also got reprimanded when she went to sit next to Karla to work on another book project a couple of days ago. So this time she knows better and she stays on her chair, waiting for the classmates to finish. But it is taking them too long, so she gets impatient: She also wants to be done with the writing so she can move to the packet. She moves left and right to try to grasp the titles, and then finally she starts trying to get Fher’s attention. “I can’t see, Fher!” she cries. But the boy is too much into his writing to pay attention to her. Maria, annoyed, makes one last attempt and this one must help: “Teacher, I can’t see with Fher standing there!” Mrs. Sanders, who just came back from the class next door, looks in the direction of the white board and sees the two boys standing there, writing the titles of the stories and blocking the view. Then she says: “Fher, I really like how you read that,” bringing a smile to Fher’s face, who keeps writing in his position after getting the attention he wanted. Then, looking back to Maria, the teacher answers: “You may have to go there too.” Maria, quietly puzzled, stands up and goes to the board. She is next to Fher now, on the side, copying the titles of the stories. She finishes after Fher, but before Lauro, who has been distracted a number of times making his writing even slower. Then Maria goes back to her seat, and starts writing her sentences.

90    P. P. GUERRA LOMBARDI and A. S. FOSTER

In this second vignette, Mrs. Sanders administered an individualized reading test. A female student is singled out and reprimanded while other male students exhibited similar behaviors which go unnoticed. Vignette #2: The Test Drama The bell rings and Karla is about to be tested. Today they are being tested on reading. The children one by one approach the table in the middle of the room where they will be working with Mrs. S on an individual basis. She will ask them to read words, and recognize and separate the sounds of some other words the teacher reads to them. The bell will ring every 30 seconds to indicate the end and beginning of tasks, and ultimately, to tell when one student is done and the teacher is ready to call another. The more words they read and the more sounds they reproduce, the better, with or without any understanding of the story or the words they are reading. Karla is waiting. Her turn will be soon. As the teacher calls Lauro and explains to him that this time he needs to “do” 50 words because he did 49 last time, the rest of the class has to read and write the answers to some questions that were given to them before. But not all of them are doing so. As a matter of fact, children go from one table to the other to show each other the drawings that are supposed to accompany those answers. Mauro and Román are standing by the computers, watching what the two girls and two boys are doing on the machines. It is not their turn, but it seems they are done with their chores, so they chose to go there. Israel is showing his stickers to the helper and to the mom who came to the class today. And José is checking out some books on one of the shelves. Meanwhile, Lauro finished his test, and the teacher congratulates him for doing such a great job: “OK Lauro, good job. You didn’t miss any of these. I’m so proud of you, Lauro. See? Practice, practice, practice reading at home. Tell your mom how proud of you I am.” Then she calls on Román, who approaches the table from the opposite side of where he sits, the computer site. He takes his place with the teacher, and Karla knows it is not her turn yet. She knows she has some extra minutes, and she also sees Mara is alone at her table since her partner Mauro is by the computers. It looks like Mara is finished like she is, so she decides to go there and tell her about the drawing for her answers. She gets up and walks to the chair next to her friend. As she is sitting, we hear the bell again. Román finished one of his sections. Then we hear Mrs. S: “Karla! Where do you think you are going?! We are on a test, so go back to your seat. Do you want to lose your recess?” Karla goes back to her seat. She sees the colorful screens of the computers that are more crowded than ever. But she knows her place is at her table, so she will not even attempt to go and find out what keeps four boys and two girls so entertained. Instead, she chooses to show the helper her work and make sure her spelling is good. Soon her turn for the test will come, and she has to be ready.

On Being a Boy or a Girl in Mrs. Sanders’ First Grade Classroom     91

In this final vignette, Mrs. Sanders has moved a student to his own “private office” for behavioral reasons. The class was engaged in a cooperative math lesson using manipulatives and computers. David was banished from group work; yet, he seemed to better understand the problem solving lesson and even assisted his classmates as they worked at the computer nearest him. Vignette #3: The Manipulation of David It is almost lunchtime, and the class will soon get ready to go to the cafeteria for lunch. The children have been working on solving word problems during their math time. They are each at a table working cooperatively with manipulatives. There is one computer assigned to each of the four groups. The children are sharing their solutions, communicating their ideas and working to solve the problems. David, who has been banished by the teacher for misbehavior and failure to do manipulatives with his group mates has been moved to a “private office,” which happens to be very close to one of the computers and out of sight of Mrs. Sanders. David observes his classmates closely as they work in groups. When students work at the computer near David, he offers advice and shows them how to use the colorful computer program. The computer is far more interesting than the word problems David must solve. David acts as an expert and continues to offer assistance to anyone in his presence. His math work will not get done before lunch and most likely, will not get done at all. In Mrs. Sanders’ classroom, David is excluded from participation because of his inability to get along with others. He is often seen arguing with students. So, Mrs. Sanders removed him from group work. With these new arrangements, David’s disruption has indeed been minimized and he does not have to share or cooperate with others. No one complains, especially David, who rather enjoys his own private table and access to the computer. Mrs. Sanders calls for attention, “Those of you working at the computers go back to your seat. We have to get ready for lunch. Table one is ready. They can go and wash their hands. Let’s see who else is ready . . . mmmm, table four is not ready yet . . .” David then exclaims with a big smile, “Teacher, don’t forget about table 6½ like you did yesterday!” With that, Mrs. Sanders replies, “You’re right! Table 6½ is ready. David, you can go and wash your hands for lunch.” David grins happily and washes his hands.

92    P. P. GUERRA LOMBARDI and A. S. FOSTER

Discussion After observing Mrs. Sanders’ classroom, interviewing her, and getting to know the boys and girls and the helper, it is evident that both overt and subtle gender inequity incidences occurred, and occurred often. It was fairly obvious that the notion of boys being noisy, rough, and tough, is a general assumption held by Mrs. Sanders and the helper. Boys were praised more often and were allowed certain privileges in the classroom to which girls were not privy. The expectations for girls seemed to be that they remain compliant and quiet, and that they do their work independently. Girls generally followed the rules and, as a result, received less praise and encouragement for their good behavior than did boys. Boys get away with what they want much more often than do girls in Mrs. Sander’s classroom. The subtle, more discreet, inequities that occurred in Mrs. Sanders’ classroom have much to do with her expectations for boys’ versus girls’ behavior and performance. Boys were expected to be noisier, and so they were. Boys were reprimanded, but not as often as girls were. Boys were encouraged to work with partners, to talk about their work, and were allowed to argue with one another about classroom activities. As a result, the boys in Mrs. Sanders’ classroom spent less time in their seats, talked more with each other, argued more, and debated about their assignments and classroom materials. Most important of all, they appeared to believe they were entitled to their teacher’s attention; therefore they got greater attention and instructional time from Mrs. Sanders. Mrs. Sanders’ main thrust in her classroom appeared to be to keep the boys on task. She spent a good part of her day assisting the boys with their assignments. While Mrs. Sanders was busy with the boys, the girls were left under the care and influence of the helper, the special needs instructional aid. The concern here might be the underlying message the girls received: While boys were tackling the tough assignments, the girls were left with someone with little content background. This interaction with the helper might be problematic, particularly in the case of girls learning science and mathematics. Which group benefitted from more quality instructional time with the teacher? Clearly, it was the boys. Implications Are teachers perpetuating the idea that boys are rule breakers by the very nature of their snips, snails, and puppy dog tails and that girls are simply sugar and spice and everything nice? How does this perception of the nature of boys and girls translate to their preference or passion for science and mathematics? Higher level mathematics involves an inventive capacity

On Being a Boy or a Girl in Mrs. Sanders’ First Grade Classroom     93

that perhaps is destroyed in girls who must practice obedience. According to Boaler (2002), girls are encouraged by teachers in school to be obedient and compliant, to accept mathematical methods as they are given, and to learn by rote. Boys, she proposed, are encouraged to be adventurous and challenging. This expectation for boys and girls has major implications for learning mathematics and science and “leads girls to develop preferences for structured learning environments and leads boys to develop the propensity to challenge and change mathematical methods” (Boaler, 2002, p. 132). Even though the vignettes in this chapter are not specific to mathematics and science instruction, the interactions in Mrs. Sanders’ class were consistent throughout the day. The girls received the message from their teacher that the way to be accepted was to do as they were told. That message counters the development of creative thinkers and shortchanges girls who, for example, in higher level mathematics courses, will be challenged to invent algorithms. Those who can invent algorithms in mathematics generally outperform those who cannot (Fennema et al., 1998). It is highly likely that attitudes of teachers toward girls shape even the access girls perceive themselves to have with regard to their education. It is important to uncover the factors that can be controlled for girls to have the same access boys have to a challenging education, especially in mathematics and science. In our case study, the need for professional development for teachers concerning gender and schooling is clear, as several studies pointed out that teachers hold different expectations for boys and girls in classrooms. Our study concurs with numerous others that (1) boys get more attention by being straightforward and unreserved, (2) teachers praise boys more often, (3) boys receive more academic help, and (4) teachers are more likely to accept boys’ ideas and opinions during classroom discussion. The world is increasingly shaped by science, mathematics, and technology. In order for students to be productive citizens in their world, literacy in science, mathematics, and technology is vital. Thus, the onus is on the primary school teacher to inspire, encourage, and educate both boys and girls in ways that promote equitable opportunities in STEM. No child, based on gender, in the primary classroom should receive a message from the teacher, in particular, that would limit his or her confidence to perform well. References Battey, D., Kafai, Y., Nixon, A. S., & Kao, L. L. (2007). Professional development for teachers on gender equity in the sciences: Initiating the conversation. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 221–243. Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., & Levine, S. C. (2009). Female teachers’ math anxiety affects girls’ math achievement. Proceedings of the National

94    P. P. GUERRA LOMBARDI and A. S. FOSTER Academy of Sciences. Retrieved January 30, 2010, from http://www.pnas.org/ content/early/2010/01/14/0910967107.full.pdf+html Boaler, J. (2002). Paying the price for “sugar and spice”: Shifting the analytical lens in equity research. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4, 127–144. Campbell , P. B. & Storo, J. N. (1996). Girls are . . . boys are . . . : Myths, stereotypes & gender differences. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved February 2, 2010, from http://www.campbell-kibler.com/Stereo.pdf Clewell, B. & Campbell, P. (2002). Taking stock: Where we’ve been, where we are, where we’re going. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8, 255–284. Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. (1998). New perspectives on gender differences in mathematics: An introduction. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–5. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T., Jacobs, V., Franke, M., & Levi, L. (1998). A longitudinal study of gender differences in young children’s mathematical thinking. Educational Researcher, 27, 6–11. Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139–155. Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., & Linn, M. C., Ellis, A. B., Williams, C. C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321(5888), 494–495. Mead, S. (2006). The evidence suggests otherwise: The truth about boys and girls. Washington, D.C.: The Education Sector.

Chapter 6

How South African Teachers Construct Gender in the Early Years of Schooling Deevia Bhana

An emerging body of international work describes the ways that early childhood teachers construct and make gender invisible in the lives of young children (Alloway, 1995; Blaise, 2005; MacNaughton, 2000). Such research has begun to explore how longstanding conventions based on biological and sex-role theories make gender a frivolous concern in early childhood, regulating and policing the behavior of boys and girls. Early childhood teachers have been made particularly visible in this research as a consequence of their over reliance on traditional definitions of children that reproduce the myth that “gender does not matter to young children” (Alloway, 1995; Blaise, 2005; MacNaughton, 2000). Critiquing these myths, poststructural feminists have explored the ways in which early childhood education is integral in the construction and regulation of gender identities (Davies & Banks, 1995; Yelland, 1998). Drawing upon poststructural feminist theorizing, in this chapter I focus on the ways that South African early childhood teachers give meaning to gender and young children. Gender and Early Learning Environments, pages 95–108 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

95

96    D. BHANA

Research into gender and early childhood is relatively new in Africa, and very few studies in South Africa attempt to investigate gender issues in this sector of schooling (see Bhana, 2002, as an exception). Drawing on elements of an ethnography of gender in grade one and two, I identify three common teaching discourses that pervade teachers’ understandings of boys and girls (ages 6–9). The three common teaching discourses are (1) boys will be boys, (2) children are children; gender does not matter, and (3) parents are models. I argue that these teaching discourses harness biological and sex-role theories to regulate gender identities and provide a view of boys and girls as separate and opposite. Regulation works to elevate and naturalize power to boys and men. Such teaching discourses are restrictive and do not offer the potential to address gender equality in early childhood. Understanding the ways that early childhood teachers give meaning to boys and girls is especially significant as the need to address gender inequalities is also the intention and thrust of policy protection in South Africa. Theoretical Framework Different explanations exist about how to understand young children and gender. Some explanations see gender as an effect of biological programming (MacNaughton, 2000); proponents of brain differences, for example, cite brain activity and structure to explain biological differences between boys and girls. Such views reinforce a much criticized view that men are naturally scientific (Davies, 1989). Biological differences are considered to be natural and unalterable, leaving power elevated in the hands of boys and men. While there has been a sophisticated attack on such biological understanding of gender, such views remain powerful in early childhood education (Bhana, 2002). Unlike biological explanations, sex-role perspectives suggest that children learn gender from social institutions, including the family and the media. Sex-role theory is seen as an advance over biological interpretation in that gender is not static and inherent, but it shifts and is dependent on what the child learns from society (MacNaughton, 2000). However, sex-role theory undermines the ability of children to make sense of the social world. It assumes in a deterministic way that children learn gender in an uncritical manner from society, and thus, they are determined by it. The reliance on biology and sex-role theories promotes the idea that children are blank sheets on which gender patterns are stamped. Within these frames, children are constructed as powerless, unprotesting, and passive recipients of knowledge. Sex-role theories assume that children do not have the competence to make meaning of their lives but are socialized by others, including their parents as adults who have power over them. Working in the U.S.,

How South African Teachers Construct Gender in the Early Years of Schooling    97

Thorne (1993) argued against the ideas of gender as static and ahistorical. She postulates a feminist poststructural account of gender and argues that “power is central to the social relations of gender” (p. 199). Using the notions of power, feminist poststructuralist theories, particularly in the West, have begun a mounting critique in early childhood education, pointing out that gender is socially and culturally constructed (Davies, 1989; Koch & Irby, 2005; MacNaughton, 1997; Yelland, 1998). Feminist poststructuralism provides ways of thinking about children and identity that go beyond sex-role theories and biology (Davies & Banks, 1995; Grieshaber & Canella, 2001). Poststructuralist thinking is concerned loosely with discourse, power, meanings (knowledge), and identity. Discourses enable particular groups of people to exercise power in ways that benefit them (Weedon, 1997). For example, boys will be boys is a powerful dictum. It is not true; however, the subliminal meaning of the dictum evokes power. Meanings are influenced by power and power influences meaning. Power is, thus, always shaped and limited by systems of meanings. The meanings about what is normal in the constitution of the category boy, for example, places pressure on all people to position and be positioned by such gendered constructs, because those constructs are vested with power. Boys will be boys recreates meanings that naturalize violence, aggression, and competition as the domain of the masculine and is normalized, producing gender inequalities. Understanding how early childhood teachers give meaning to boys and girls through the lens of power and poststructural feminism permits a re-evaluation of dominant understandings of gender and begins the call to engage with the dominant and dominating theories upheld by South African early childhood teachers in this study. Background to the Study The data and analyses presented in this chapter derive from a completed ethnography of four primary schools exploring how teachers and children construct gender through the accounts by and observations of teachers and boys and girls in grades 1 and 2, generally between the ages of six and nine in Durban, KwaZulu-Natal (Bhana, 2002). I present teachers’ shared accounts of gender and young children. The fieldwork took place over a period of one year and involved interviews and observations of 12 teachers across the four different school sites. The research sample was purposive. The primary schools included one predominantly white middle class school (Westridge Primary), one predominantly Indian, middle-to-working-class school (Umhlatuzana Primary), a black poor township school (KwaDabeka Primary), and one black rural poor school (Umbumbulu Primary). Altogether I visited 12 classrooms (and 12 teachers)—four White teachers in

98    D. BHANA

Westridge (Mrs. A–D), two Indian teachers in Umhlatuzana (Mrs. E–F), three Black teachers in KwaDabeka (Mrs. G–I) and three Black teachers in Umbumbulu (Mrs. J–L). All are married, middle class, and have between nine and 29 years of teaching experience with young children between the ages of six and nine. There were no males teaching young children in the research schools. Teaching young children is often regarded as women’s work, and the absence of men in the research schools points to the gendered hierarchies of schooling, with most men located in the secondary phase of schooling and in management (Francis, 1998). What follows is the presentation of three common teaching discourses that I found across the four school sites in Durban. Boys will be Boys The regulation of gendered identities in the early schooling contexts occurs through a shared discourse that positions boys and girls as biologically different. As Mrs. G articulated, “By nature most boys are aggressive. The girls are talkative by nature.” Making difference biological is a primary means through which teaching discourses execute and regulate gender identities. The overarching view that boys, for example, are naturally prone to aggressiveness is traditional and limiting. If it is true that boys are naturally violent and girls are genetically coded to do the talking, then little can be done to change this. In South Africa, gender-based violence rates amongst the highest in the world (IRIN, 2007), with men and boys specifically involved in violence. Making difference biological helps to reproduce a natural masculinity and a natural femininity. I fear this does nothing to reduce rates of violence, yet perpetuates biological determinism, the same kind of rationality that has been used to explain white intellectual superiority over blacks. The regulation of identity in this way invariably produces negative outcomes in the work towards equality, and specifically gender equality. Further, such regulation limits what the teacher can do in violence-related incidents. Making difference biological works in other overarching ways to inhibit gender equity. Mrs. E stated, You saw the math lesson. It’s the boys who are better both orally and in written work. The boys gave the answers and they are quicker. On the whole the girls are better in reading. I don’t have any clue why that’s so. Maybe it’s the way we use our brain. Do you know that there are different ways we use the left and right hand side of the brain?

Making difference biological obliges individuals to “achieve the ways of being that appear to be implicated in a particular set of genitals they hap-

How South African Teachers Construct Gender in the Early Years of Schooling    99

pen to have” (Davies, 1989, p. 237), as Mrs. E illustrates. Achieving mathematical prowess, for example, is associated with the kind of brains that boys have. Such a concept promotes the idea that biological difference resides in the structure and function of the brain. Apparently, Mrs. E suggests that male and female brains are structured differently and so the tasks that are executed are different. Since the processing of tasks is different, different outcomes are achieved. Mathematics becomes suited to boys’ brain structure and reading to girls. This dichotomous position can be explained in terms of man/woman, reason/emotion, math/reading, left/right use of the brain (Davies, 1989; Gilbert & Gilbert, 1998). Mrs. E felt that young children might be born with a set of essentially female or male behaviors associated with the left and right hemispheres of the brain. She claims that the left and right brain dichotomy provides a basis through which she can differentiate between the strengths and capacities of boys and girls; therefore, it describes what boys and girls can do. This is not an unfamiliar discourse parading as legitimate, as Alloway (1995) suggested with the “left– right brain hemispheres” (p. 14). The left–right structuring of the brain is used as biologically different processing structures with different outcomes for males and females (Gilbert & Gilbert, 1998). The adoption of this discourse makes pedagogical sense to Mrs. E when she explains that boys “are better and quicker in math,” orally and in written work. Girls, she says, are good at reading. A particular set of genitals obliged a particular kind of brain structuring to achieve a particular way of being. The idea of the left and right hand brain differentiation contributes to the binary biological ordering of the sexes, connecting itself to the construction of gendered identities. In other words, her theory about left and right brain structuring translated into explanations for girls’ ability in reading and boys’ advantage in mathematics. Boys and girls become genetically and dualistically predispositioned to perform or not in mathematics and reading. Sex-role theory based on biological difference permeates most thinking as is further illustrated the following extract: I ask Mrs. B. how she perceives difference in boys and girls. Mrs. B. says, “Boys and girls are different, physically they know that they are different.” Mrs. B. asks me: “Have you ever seen how boys and girls play with a ball?” I had never really thought about it, even though I had spent several years observing my older son play cricket and rugby. Mrs. B. says “boys dribble and kick the balls, whilst girls roll the balls.” I raise my eyebrow in amazement and will certainly watch my sons the next time around. Mrs. B talks about a recent outing with the children to a park. She says, “I wish you were there to see what I’m talking about. The girls went out to collect pretty little things whilst the boys jumped and crossed over the river.”

100    D. BHANA

According to Mrs. B, a simple cause and effect relationship exists between girls rolling the ball and “pretty little things” and boys who “jumped and crossed the river,” and kick and dribble balls. Although a persuasive argument has been made against biologically based sex-role theories (Grieshaber & Cannella, 2001), these theories are pervasive means through which the sexes are ordered in the schools and through which unequal power relations are perpetuated. In a world of two sexes, distinct and complementary ways of being are translated into explanations that girls might be dainty, and boys rough. The effect of these discourses is to determine in advance what constitutes normal femininity and masculinity. Normalizing identity means rewarding some, attacking others and creating judgments about what constitutes a normal identity. This sets the limits of what is possible and permissible in schools and hides the unequal power relations that exist across either ends of the dichotomy. Moreover, the power plays that exist in everyday life lose their significance through the finite construction of the self as static and fixed. An overarching effect of making difference biological is the boys will be boys discourse, which assumes biological determinism. My observations and interviews were suggestive of this: (1) Mrs. D: The boys like to get up to some mischief at the back of the classroom. Mrs. D asks the class to be quiet Most of the children put their pointer fingers to their lips Mrs. D: Thank you children for sitting so politely . . . just those boys playing swords spoilt it. (2) Mrs. A: They’re[Boys] real causers hey! In my class, they just want to have their way. It’s in their personality. Mrs. F: Look at the class now, the girls are carrying on, on their own and the boys . . . look. They are the main culprits. They have to be given more attention. But some boys are sweet and obedient. With the girls, you tell them one thing and they listen. See how the girls work. You can see for yourself. . . like the naughty boys you have to keep talking to them. Mrs. L: The boys are the naughty ones. Mrs. H: Boys will be boys. Mrs. G: By nature most boys are aggressive. . . . They are always naughty, just like boys’ behavior . . . boys will remain boys. They are just like that. Boys are always rough. They do kick and throw things down. . . . If work is demanded the girls give it on time because they know they will be punished. The boys are not afraid because they repeat the mistake and they don’t do the work.

How South African Teachers Construct Gender in the Early Years of Schooling    101



Mrs. G: Everybody is free now with the ANC[African National Congress]. But the boys are more free. They are always naughty, just like boys’ behavior because boys speak out. The girls are shy.

The boys will be boys cliché is based on biological assumptions and homogenizes the boys in ways that suggest their less-than-satisfactory behavior: culprits, causers, mischievous, want their way, naughty, aggressive, fearless, and rough. The following is an observation at Westridge Primary of the power of the dictum boys will be boys: At the end of the play break all children in grades one, two and three have to line up before being dismissed by the teacher on duty. They do so in orderly gendered lines. The teacher on duty expects silence and order before she will allow them to move to their classrooms. This demand for order takes time, so that a lot of time passes from the ringing of the bell to the time that the children leave for their classrooms. In between all of this there is chatting, nibbling, laughing, closing up lunch boxes, gobbling leftover snacks, hiding behind others as they did so. This was despite the teacher’s insistence on straight lines, order and silence. I heard her say: “Boys, be quiet; otherwise, I will bring the Black book.” The Black book is the ultimate punishment. As observer, this was the clearest example of how teachers secure boys’ visibility through naturalizing their behavior.

The tendency to homogenize boys is to locate the problem with boys, blaming the boys for discipline problems. Girls are the models through which boys’ behavior is constructed. Boys’ behavior demands more teacher attention. Mrs. F says that she needs to “keep talking” to the naughty boys. However, boys’ visibility does not always work to their advantage, as the observation above shows. The visibility of boys as problems is tied directly to teacher constructions of masculinity that are biological. It is assumed that there is a core personality and character defining masculinity, which all boys actually or potentially share (Gilbert & Gilbert, 1998). Boys are constructed as naturally equipped to be, for instance, causers, as Mrs. A suggests. These essentialist arguments work to constrain teachers in exercising power and ensuring a more harmonious classroom that benefits all. If boys and roughness are naturalized as unchangeable, hard-wired, and violent, then the possibility for change in boys (and men) is erased and unequal power relations remain unchallenged. The boys will be boys pathology is intimately connected to and shaped by the discourse that makes difference biological, and is intrinsic to the formation of gendered identities. Mrs. G says that boys do not turn in work on time and that they are “not afraid because they repeat the mistake and they don’t do the work.” This is a clear example of the ways in which boys

102    D. BHANA

re(create) systems of masculine power. In this way, the production of identity is linked with the production of particular discourses, such as biological determinism that serve to legitimate masculine power. The boys will be boys discourse thus makes “boyhood . . .  the entitlement to and the anticipation of power” (Foster, Kimmel, & Skelton, 2001, p. 16). However, all boys are not the same. The boys will be boys discourse is open to contradictions. For example, some boys, according to Mrs. F, are “sweet and obedient.” Mrs. G explains that some boys kick and throw things down—a violent masculinity. This suggests the existence of masculinities and points to the complex ways through which boys try to get their gender right. Clearly, biological definitions of the self limit the work towards gender equality, and when discourses lump boys as boys will be boys, they serve to work against the varied forms of masculinity. Such discourses also work against the idea that masculinities are, in fact, forged in social circumstances. In particular, they work to (re) produce unequal power relations, which privilege boys.





Mrs. C: You know, it’s very seldom that the boys and girls play with each other in my class. The boys are very competitive. You will notice the boys dominate most of the top groups in reading and maths. The girls are really overshadowed in the class. Even if you ask them to team up they choose friends of the same gender. Author: Why is it that way? Mrs. C: It’s typical. The boys are the lively ones. You must have heard the noise. It’s them. They just love to scream and shout, quite typical you know. Author: What do you mean? Mrs. C: Boys tend to have a strong character. The girls are quiet— more the dolly type. Not that they don’t have those amongst them that scream and screech. There are ringleaders. Look at Linda—she’s one of them, yet, she is so quiet in the class because the boys just overpower her . . . 

Mrs. C names power as a central means to explore the nature of gender inequalities, but boys’ hegemonic pattern of conduct (hegemonic masculinity) is celebrated. This positions boys collectively as privileged over girls (Connell, 1995). These patterns of conduct for boys are strong, lively, shouting, and screaming, which Mrs. C constructs as typical. Typical girls’ behavior implies passive, weak and hushed. Mrs. C explained, The girls are pathetic. They don’t take risks. They’re really not the adventurous sort. . . . My girls are just so happy with following what I say. . . . The boys are so energetic. Much more enthusiastic. They challenge me all the

How South African Teachers Construct Gender in the Early Years of Schooling    103 time . . . really confident. The girls are real screechers. Always coming to me with tales . . . so and so did this or that. It’s so annoying.

The boys will be boys discourse serves to overshadow girls, producing judgment about what constitutes an ideal. Mrs. C is aware of boys overpowering girls, but she fails to see it as disadvantageous to any particular group, because she relies on biologically based difference. Mrs. C was able to position boys in terms of a common sense approach, but it involved the denigration of femininity, which damages social relations and hinders the work towards equality. Further, her failure to perceive the denigration of femininity and the opposing positioning of boys works to produce the skill of adventure, confidence, mathematical prowess, sport, and competitiveness for the boardrooms in which men have a history of success in the material world. Are girls at the age of eight moving into a quiet world where they follow orders and are overpowered and overshadowed? Is this what South African schooling enables? This section has offered an analysis that moves beyond the traditional concerns of biology and focuses on the effects of a boys will be boys discourse. Children are Children: Gender Does Not Matter Gender does not matter is a major currency in all the schools in this study. My skepticism about teachers’ thoughts on gender consciousness among young children developed during the initial stages of the research while I was establishing access and building social relations with teachers. In commenting on my research, teachers suggested that I should research something such as curriculum standards where, as they suggested, the findings could be more expansive. I kept wondering about their comments on the yielding of dividends as if studying gender would not yield any dividends. My concern grew as I recalled that I was talking to teachers who had between 9 to 29 years of experience in early childhood teaching. The following represents their perceptions related to gender:



Mrs. D: Actually I haven’t thought about gender. I tend to treat children as children and not consciously think that that’s a boy. I do think that they need their own roles. A girl is definitely different from a boy and a boy is different from a girl, and they need to be aware of it. But I don’t think I’ve thought very deeply about it (laughing) as affecting anything. Mrs. I: In my class they are all the same whether they are boys or girls.

104    D. BHANA





Mrs. G: I treat them all the same. They are all equal for me. In God’s eyes everyone is equal. Do you know what makes them not equal? It’s their behavior. Look at Siyanda[boy]. He’s so aggressive. By nature most boys are aggressive. The girls are talkative by nature. Mrs. L: They are the same. These are just kids. The boys dominate the class. It’s the same. The girls are the shy ones . . .  Mrs. F: Boys still follow fathers and girls follow mothers, like boys are interested in cars. Girls will be different with different interests. It’s how children are in general. Mrs. H: I see all pupils as the same. They are all the same to me.

The above conversations that I had with teachers substantiate the micro gender matters in the classroom. Failing to attend to gender in the lives of young children is a result of dominant discourses that tend to construct children as biological, passive, and unprotesting, without agency, rendering both boys and girls invisible. The identification of children as children makes gender power invisible. Identifying with the discourse that children are all the same to me precludes complicity in gender (and other) inequalities. Moreover, this position assumes that all boys are the same and all girls are the same. This is linked to the assumed biological distinctions that I described in the previous section. Why should gender matter when children are biologically inscribed in advance? This makes the ability to identify against the association of gender and young children easier. The competing discourse over gender in early schooling constantly interacts and creates regimes of truth. Foucault (1982) believed that all social institutions survive and thrive through creating truths about how individuals should think, act and feel towards ourselves and others. The teaching discourses hang together through the creation and maintenance of certain truths about how educators should think about gender in early schooling. For example, teachers are able to position themselves in discourses rendering gender invisible in the lives of young children—a regime that governs what are seen to be normal and right ways of being a teacher in early schooling. Biological determinism and the gender does not matter position people as male or female and provide narratives about the ways in which people should behave. The shared teaching discourses are not independent of each other but are circuits connecting with each other, as they create particular configurations in early schooling. For example, Mrs. B suggests that “children are children . . . a girl is definitely different from a boy and a boy is different from a girl. . . .” Her categorization of children involved recourse to biological definitions of difference. Similarly, Mrs. F adopts a gender-neutral position by suggesting that boys and girls have different interests but that’s “how

How South African Teachers Construct Gender in the Early Years of Schooling    105

children are in general.” The children are non-gendered precisely because their differences are assumed to be fixed and biological. This overlaps with the previous section as the discourses interact and are woven together. Gender-fixing also happens through recourse to God and religion: everyone is equal in God’s eyes so why should gender matter? The gravity of biology and religion are based on naturalizing human beings as fixed and immovable. The dominance of this discourse means that particular practices are omitted from early schooling contexts. This was articulated by Mrs. B, “I don’t think I’ve thought very deeply about it [gender] as affecting anything.” The children are children discourse naturalizes human behavior. For example, Mrs. G claims that “most boys are aggressive,” while Mrs. L notes that the boys dominate the classroom. Aggression and domination in the classroom represent the naturalization of masculine power. Naturalization works to create and sustain masculine power that benefits males, and this has specific consequences for girls. Thus, when girls are socially constructed as the shy ones, and boys are socially constructed as aggressive and dominating, power is naturalized within a dominating discourse that frames children as children and assumes the naturalness of girls’ and boys’ behavior. Teachers often fail to see the significance of gender because of the dominant discourses that make gender irrelevant. If the object in early schooling is on the child as gender-neutral, then teachers cannot see the child as gendered and constructing gendering with others, nor can they challenge the continual construction of boys as dominant and girls as shy. These commonsense positions are deeply intertwined with the understandings of how to be a teacher of young children. Parents are the Models The perception of children as non-gendered, and, therefore, as unprotesting young minds without the ability to make choices about how to be, is a dominant teaching discourse. The dominant teaching discourses discussed so far are different but they overlap as mutually supportive and interconnected grids. The parents are the models discourse interconnects with other discourses (re)producing the conservatism of teaching discourses and the logic that children are passive. Just how dominant and conservative this discourse is can be illustrated in the narrowness in understanding power relations as Mrs. B. noted: So the problem with gender is that there are different home values brought to school. If there is a certain idea at home, you can sow seeds in the classroom, but you can’t change. Besides, if certain people think that way about gender, it is not our right to change it.

106    D. BHANA

Mrs. B’s perspective raises important issues in the research on gender in the early years of schooling. This is inextricably linked to the conceptualization of power as finite and the power of family and parents. Mrs. B articulates a position through which power is constructed in a linear direction. Power is possessed by adults. This understanding of power is limiting in beginning the work towards gender equality. If education is the vehicle for building a new nation in South Africa, then its capacity to drive gender equality is restricted by a discourse that paralyses action. Power in Mrs. B’s articulation is seen as the imposition of one’s values on another. This meant that she believed that she could not change the conditions in her classroom. She could not control the conditions in her classroom because power resided somewhere else—with parents as more influential adults. The idea that there is a simple relationship in how children become gendered is based on socialization and power as oppressive. Exercising power may be at odds with her idea that it is not right to interfere with what children learn at home, so that schooling as an arena of social change is made less promising. This is not convincing because teachers are very powerful agents in school, and the children often idolize and adore them. The dominant teaching discourse, however, is a strategic tactic to produce the logic of passivity in children. Mrs. F elaborated, You know how important the parents are in bringing up their children. The children will naturally carry what their parents have expected. I think we need to be equal, but you automatically fall back on what your parents have taught you. What I follow is what my mother taught me and so that’s how I carry on. . . .

Mrs. F, like Mrs. B’s commonsense approach, constructs the home and the parents as one of the central foundations of child and gender development. The family is a key to understanding how gender is mediated and negotiated, but gendering occurs in many sites, and the school is one of them. Children are assumed to get their gender right in terms of socialization. Sex-role stereotyping tends to reinforce biological understandings of being female and being male. In Mrs. F’s terms, “parents are the models— children are born as boys or girls and are socialized by their parents to be that way.” Such a discourse assumes that parents model and reinforce in the child those behaviors that are considered to be sex-role appropriate (MacNaughton, 2000). Sex-role theory is based on an ordered and consistent relation between the social institutions and some causal mechanism. What adults want and do affects what children become. In another interview, Mrs. F. illustrates the point further: “Parents are the models. Boys will imitate their fathers and girls imitate their mothers. It’s already set there. Boys are good with their hands. Girls are sharper with reading and they are more obedient.”

How South African Teachers Construct Gender in the Early Years of Schooling    107

Boys become boys in the ways that they do because of a simple cause and effect relationship. Here it is assumed that sexist gender differences are created and maintained through a process of osmosis (Davies, 1989). In this process, it is assumed that children, as unthinking beings, automatically absorb how to become. Hence, boys and girls for Mrs. F become gendered through imitation and modeling. For Mrs. F, boys and girls become traditionally gendered because they have absorbed the sexist gender messages from their parents. Conclusion The early years of schooling are associated with gender in rich and complicated ways that produce and regulate gender identities. Drawing on feminist poststructural analysis of early childhood teachers’ accounts of boys and girls, I have demonstrated how traditional theories underpin knowledge of children and gender. Such traditions function as regulatory mechanisms, producing a network that attempts to govern early childhood as a gender-free political arena. Teaching discourses, I have argued, are hegemonic, conservative, and constraining in the quest to seek gender equality in early childhood. Feminist poststructural accounts of gender and power have been useful in illuminating the constraints in putting gender and childhood together. Boys will be boys, it has been shown, reproduces unequal power relations and normalizes behavior for girls and boys. Boys are not simply advantaged by the teachers’ views, but their behaviors are problematized, with boys being categorized together as culprits and bad. Fostering the belief that children are innocent, the discourse that gender does not matter works to further circumscribe and instill powerlessness among young children, and particularly girls. Such teaching discourses serve to perpetuate the minor status of the early years in the bigger picture of schooling and lead to a systematic inattention to the dynamic lives of all those in the early years. Society is expected to think about young children as passive recipients of adult parents because of their assumed vulnerability. Given the gendering processes, the early years of formal schooling would appear vital for teachers to begin work with young children in the achievement of gender equality. Beginning to work with South African early childhood teachers is a necessary step to draw attention to the ways in which conventional ideas about children and gender inhibit prospects for change. Unless early childhood sectors begin to understand the regulation of gender identities, the quest for gender equality will be difficult.

108    D. BHANA

References Alloway, N. (1995). Foundation stones: The construction of gender in early childhood. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation. Bhana, D. (2002). Making gender in early schooling. A multi-sited ethnography of power and discourse: from grade one to two in Durban. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Natal. Blaise, M. (2005). Playing it straight uncovering gender Discourses in the early childhood classroom. New York: Routledge. Connell, R.W. (1995). Masculinities. Sydney: Allen and Unwin Davies, B. (1989). Frogs and snails and feminist tales. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Davies, B. & Banks, C. (1995). The gender trap: A feminist poststructuralist analysis of primary school children’s talk about gender. In J. Holland, M. Blair, & S. Sheldon (Eds.), Debates and issues in feminist research and pedagogy (pp. 253– 268). Adelaide: Multilingual Matters and The Open University. Foster, V., Kimmel, M., & Skelton, C. (2001). What about the boys? An overview of the debates. In W. Martino & B. Meyenn (Eds.), What about the boys? Issues of masculinity in schools (pp. 1–24). Philadelphia: Open University Press. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In H. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp 45–68). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Francis, B. (1998). Power plays. Primary school children’s constructions of gender, power, and adult work. London: Trentham Books. Gilbert, R. & Gilbert, P. (1998). Masculinity goes to school. New York: Routledge. Grieshaber, S. & Cannella, G.S. (2001). Embracing identities in early childhood education: Diversity and possibilities. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN). (2007). South Africa: Closing the gap on gender-based violence. Retrieved on September 16, 2009, from http://www .alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/0318330bb059d7e7cea41e471bbe3c ec.htm. Koch, J. & Irby, B.J. (2005). Gender and schooling in the early years. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. MacNaughton, G. (1997). Feminist praxis and the gaze in the early childhood curriculum. Gender and Education. 9(3), 317–326. MacNaughton, G. (2000). Rethinking gender in early childhood education. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play, girls and boys in school. Buckingham: Open University Press. Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. Oxford. UK: Blackwell. Yelland, N. (1998). Gender in early childhood. New York: Routledge.

Chapter 7

Race, Space, and Girls’ Interactions on Urban Playgrounds Eleanor S. Fulbeck

Diana: Sometimes I get mad at black people cause they get mad at us and say, “Stop talkin’ Spanish; it’s America.” And they say that if you talk Spanish, you have to go back to Mexico and stuff like that. And I don’t like that. Tiffany: But like the problem is, when y’all talk Spanish, y’all look at us so we always think that cause black people like, when they talkin’ about somebody, they always look at you at the same time and when they sayin’ something bad. And that’s what y’all do and so we think that y’all talkin’ bout us.

The above exchange between Diana, a Latina 5th grader, and Tiffany, an African-American 6th grader, illustrates some of the conflict that was observed in girls’ mixed-race interactions in this study. As schools in the United States again become segregated, leaving our children with fewer opportunities for valuable interracial social interaction, research on children’s interracial interactions is all the more important. The resegregation of our nation’s schools (Orfield & Lee, 2006) will likely limit students’ ability to successfully navigate the racially diverse and increasingly globalized society in the United States (Dawkins & Braddock, 1994). Particularly for children in urban settings, the ability and ease with which they are able to interact Gender and Early Learning Environments, pages 109–136 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

109

110    E. S. FULBECK

interracially is one of the necessary skills for academic, financial, and social success in the 21st century (Ashefelter, Collins, & Yoon, 2006). In this study I examined primarily Latina and African-American girls’ same- and mixed-race interactions on five urban playgrounds. The central research question was: Do the activities and nature of girls’ social interactions differ in same- vs. mixed-race girls’ groups on urban playgrounds? Observing activities and social interactions on playgrounds was of particular interest because play offers psychological and anthropological insights as to how children try to negotiate their own identity and growth (Beresin, 2002). Additionally, unstructured playtime during recess is one of the few times during the day when children have a choice of activities and are able to choose with whom they play (Thian, 2006). I focused on girls’ social interactions on the playground for two primary reasons. First, substantial extant research suggests gender tends to have a greater influence than race on children’s interactions and friendship choices (Eisenhart & Holland, 1983; Maccoby, 1990; Sagar, Schofield, & Snyder, 1983; Schofield & Whitley, 1983). Because I was most interested in the effect of race on social interactions, it was important for me to study children’s social interactions in same-gender groups. Second, most research suggests boys are more likely than girls to interact with peers of a different race (Gross, 1997; Schofield & Sagar, 1977; Singleton & Asher, 1977). Though children’s social interactions clearly differ by gender, an examination of the effect of race on girls’ social interactions and friendship choices may provide a more conservative understanding of the frequency and nature of children’s interracial interactions at a given school. This study adds a case to the literature on interracial social interaction by focusing on African-American and Latina interactions. Traditionally, research about interracial interactions has looked at interactions between African-Americans and whites and, to a lesser extent, Latino/as or Asians and whites and made white interracial patterns the norm. Very little research has been conducted on interracial interactions between groups of non-whites. Given the resegregation of U.S. schools by class as well as race, non-white children are now likely to find themselves in school with other, mostly non-white children, particularly in large, urban districts. Their interaction patterns also need attention. In this chapter, I explain the conceptual framework used to guide this study and situate it within the extant literature on the influence of gender and race on children’s social interactions. I then describe the research sites, data collection strategies, and data analysis methods employed in this study. Following this, I detail the findings of this study, which suggest girls interact interracially less frequently than with girls of their same race and that these interracial interactions are also more likely to involve some form of conflict. I conclude with a discussion of African-American and Latina girls’ activities

Race, Space, and Girls’ Interactions on Urban Playgrounds    111

and social interactions, drawing on literature about playground design and physical space in an attempt to better understand why the activities and nature of social interactions differed between same-race girls’ groups and mixed-race girls’ groups. Conceptual Framework and Prior Research This research is guided by the assumption that both gender and race are socially constructed (Eisenhart & Holland, 1983; Gerson & Peiss, 1985; Thorne, 2004). Gerson and Peiss (1985) state, “[We can think of] the conception of gender as a set of socially constructed relationships which are produced and reproduced through people’s actions” (p. 327). Clothing, hairstyles, speech, socializing skills, actions, and interactions are all categorized into masculine and feminine constructs that are reinforced by society (Gerson & Peiss, 1985; Thorne, 2004). Additionally, as Eisenhart and Holland (1983) found in their study on peer groups’ role in the cultural transmission of gender for 5th and 6th grade students, social divisions of peer groups are important for the distribution of cultural knowledge. Expanding on the theory put forth by Gearing and colleagues (1979), Eisenhart and Holland argued that knowledge is acquired through the exchange of information in social interactions and, thus, learning is determined by sociocultural patterns of interaction. Borrowing from the frameworks of social construction and cultural transmission, I take the position in this study that girls form their conceptions of both gender and race in social interactions and that these interactions also served to reinforce and perpetuate such conceptions to other girls in their peer group. As a result of this framework, I find it important to focus on girls’ social interactions. Influence of Gender A great deal of prior research on children’s social interactions and friendship choices has focused on the influence of gender (Graham & Cohen, 1997). Starting from a very young age, Maccoby (1990) found gender segregation was prevalent in children’s lives, suggesting children exist in different gendered cultures. Leaper (1991) suggested gender segregation may occur in part as a result of different communication patterns between boys and girls. In a longitudinal study of peer discourse with same- and different-gender partners, Leaper found that girls’ interactions were based on closeness, cooperation, and interpersonal harmony. In contrast, he found boys’ interactions were more commonly oriented around independence, competition, and dominance. In different-gender interactions he also ob-

112    E. S. FULBECK

served boys tended to dominate discourse and that there were fewer cooperative interactions. Similarly, other researchers have noted differences in the relationships and friendship styles of boys and girls. Girls tend to have friendships that are more intimate than boys (Kraft & Vraa, 1975), and the behaviors and attitudes between girls’ and boys’ friendship networks are quite different, as evidenced by their activities (Huston, 1985), linguistic styles (Maltz & Borker, 1983), and play styles (Maccoby, 1990). As such, I expected to observe interactions among girls that involved close, intimate activities and that included cooperative discourse. However, it was still unclear how these activities and interactions would be affected by the race of the girls in the play group. Influence of Race Like gender, my interest in race and interracial interactions was informed by the theory of social construction (Gerson & Peiss, 1985). The use of the term “race” throughout this study is in reference to what some have called “social race.” “Social race” is defined by Wagley (1952) as “the way in which members of a society classify each other by physical characteristics” (p. 14, as cited in Eisenhart & Holland, 1983). As such, the use of the term “race” for this study does not imply or attempt to distinguish race or ethnicity as a biological concept but rather as a social concept rooted in an individual’s physical appearance. In their review of school desegregation literature, Clement, Eisenhart, and Wood (1976) examine many studies of children’s attitudes about and preferences for same- vs. mixed-race association. In general, the studies they reviewed suggested a preference for same-race members as friends and work partners (see for example, St. John, 1975, as cited in Clement, Eisenhart, & Wood, 1976). Overall, interracial associations tended to be fewer than samerace associations, though this was influenced by the racial composition of the school or classroom. For example, Koslin (1972) found that as the percentage of racial minorities in a classroom increased, there were more mixedrace associations, though the preference for same-race interaction remained pronounced (as cited in Clement, Eisenhart, & Wood, 1976). Based on the previous literature, I thus expected to observe more same- than mixed-race interactions among girls, though it was unclear whether the nature of these interactions would differ by the racial composition of the girls’ peer group. Interaction of Gender and Race Several researchers have posited theories about differing interracial interactions based on gender. Most research suggests boys have more interra-

Race, Space, and Girls’ Interactions on Urban Playgrounds    113

cial interactions than girls and that these tend to be more positive1 (Gross, 1997; Schofield & Sagar, 1977; Singleton & Asher, 1977). However, Johnson and Marini (1998) found girls had more positive and frequent interracial interactions than boys as a result of their stronger socializing skills. Other research has found that gender, class, and academic ability are more likely predictors of children’s friendship choices than race (Eisenhart & Holland, 1983; Schofield & Sagar, 1977; Schwartz, 1972). After studying the social interactions of 7th and 8th graders, Schofield and Sagar (1977) argued, “Female sex roles have traditionally stressed beauty and attractiveness to the opposite sex . . . Thus, [girls] may be more interested in attracting boys than in activities, which would lead to their interacting frequently with out-group girls” (p. 137). Schofield and Sagar (1977) and others (see Gross, 1997; Singleton & Asher, 1977) suggest that boys have more interracial interactions than girls as a result of the constructions of masculinity and femininity in our society. More recent research has contradicted Schofield and Sagar’s (1977) theory. Johnson and Marini (1998) asserted that society emphasizes social skills more for females than for males and that this exerts an important influence on attitudes about race. They argue that greater social skills are encouraged for women (e.g., talking with others, having good listening skills, easily expressing feelings), leading them to place more value on socializing. They go on to propose that women’s “pro-social” attitudes generally result in more positive attitudes about interracial associations for women than for men. In a companion study to Schofield and Sagar (1977), Eisenhart and Holland (1983) found that gender was not only a major organizing feature of social groups but that “gender was more important in predicting cafeteria seating patterns than were other social categories such as race” (p. 326). Their work suggests that while race may be a consideration for both boys and girls when interacting socially, it is not as influential as gender. Thus, a review of the literature on the influence of gender and race on children’s social interactions does not unequivocally suggest that girls have more positive or frequent interracial interactions relative to boys, but it does clearly suggest that both same- and mixed-race interactions are likely to differ by gender. This leads to my examination of whether or not race affects the type of activities and nature of social interactions for girls-only groups, which seeks to fill a void in the research about the affect of race on girls actions and interactions. Methodology In this section, I first describe the context in which this research was conducted. I then describe the school sites, participants, data collection strate-

114    E. S. FULBECK

gies, and data analysis methods that I employed in my study of the influence of race on girls’ social interactions on the playground. Context This research study was conducted as part of a two-semester doctoral course sequence on qualitative methods in education2 in which students collaborated on a multi-site group research project. The students in the class conducted research, some in groups and some individually, on children’s interactions at nine school playgrounds in urban neighborhoods in Denver, Colorado. Projects were coordinated within an ongoing research study called the Learning Landscapes Initiative (LLI), which is a project run by faculty at the University of Colorado’s Architecture and Urban Planning Program (LLI Center for Research Strategies, 2003). The original research study proposed by the LLI intended to assess, through a quasi-experimental design, the effects of redeveloped playgrounds as compared to playgrounds that had not yet been modified based on children’s physical activity levels. School Sites I collected data for this study during the 2006–2007 school year on five playgrounds in Denver: Bailey, Nottingham, Morro, Cleveland, and Howard Elementary Schools. All of the schools were characterized by low standardized test scores, economic struggles, frequent gang activity, and lack of parental involvement. As shown in Table 7.1, three of the schools—Bailey, Nottingham, and Morro—were primarily Latino/a. Both Cleveland and Howard had more comparable distributions of Latino/a and African-AmerTable 7.1  Demographic Characteristics of the Five Focal Elementary Schools School Bailey Nottingham Morro Cleveland Howard

CSAP Number Scores of Students Low Low Low Low Low

539 459 551 212 312

Latino/a%

AfricanAmerican%

White%

FRL%

96 88 94 51 64

1 5 1 45 33

2 5 4 2 2

88 66 87 82 89

Note: FRL stands for students’ eligibility to receive federally funded “free and reduced price lunch.” Thus the percentage of students eligible for FRL serves as a proxy for poverty at the school.

Race, Space, and Girls’ Interactions on Urban Playgrounds    115

ican students. Of these schools, Bailey Elementary was the only school that did not have a redesigned playground as part of the LLI project. Participants I made general observations of the girls3 and adults on all five elementary playgrounds. I focused my data collection at the two schools that were most racially balanced: Cleveland and Howard. At Cleveland I interviewed girls in 5th and 6th grade (N = 6), the director of the after-school program and supervisor of lunch recess, and the assistant principal. At Howard, I interviewed girls in 5th grade (N = 4) and conducted interviews with the 5th grade teacher, assistant principal, and principal. Thus, I interviewed a total of ten girls and five adults. Additionally, I administered a student survey (N = 23) to 4th and 5th graders at Howard. Observational data were collected at all five schools. Data Collection Strategies I collected three different types of data sources during this study to better understand girls’ social interactions on the playground: open-ended and guided observations, interviews, and a student survey (Spradley, 1980). Additionally, I examined data collected by other student-researchers who were conducting studies for our class during the same time period at the same schools. Although their research foci differed from mine, their field notes from observations and interviews were useful when and where children’s gender and race were identified. These different sources of data enabled me to triangulate across data sources to identify findings. Data collection began with open-ended observations during the children’s 45-minute lunch recesses and after-school recesses, framed with the general question: What activities and interactions took place on the playground? Following the open-ended observations, I conducted guided observations that were structured by the following observation guidelines: 1. With whom do girls interact on the playground? 2. What are the patterns of girls’ actions and interactions in same-race groups? 3. What are the patterns of girls’ actions and interactions in mixed-race groups? 4. What are some credible explanations for these observed patterns? Using these guidelines for my observations helped me focus on events and interactions that were specific to my study and allowed me to collect data that helped me to answer my research questions.

116    E. S. FULBECK

In addition to making guided observations on the playground, I conducted interviews with both girls and adults in order to better understand the meanings of the girls’ actions and interactions. The interviews I conducted with girls were organized as a focus group and as informal interviews after I had administered the student survey. They started with the general question: Who are your friends? This question was followed with additional questions about the activities the girls’ engaged in on the playground and the nature of their interactions with the other girls (i.e., cooperative or involving conflict). Adults were interviewed individually at both schools. These interviews were structured similarly to the interviews with the girls but started by asking the adults to generally describe the social interactions of girls they observed on the playground. Following this general question, I questioned the adults about reasons why particular patterns of actions and interactions occurred among same- and mixed-race girls’ groups. The third data source I used was a student survey distributed to 4th and 5th graders (N  =  23) at Howard Elementary. The seven survey questions asked girls about their beliefs related to friendships, interracial relations, and playground activity preferences (see Appendix A). I was fortunate to be able to administer the survey to small groups of four girls at a time, which allowed me to explain the survey and answer any questions. It was important for me to collect data in this manner in order to get frequencies about emergent patterns I had noticed and to confirm or disconfirm data I had collected from observations and interviews. Data Analysis Data analysis took place during and after data collection. Following each playground observation and audio-taped interview, I wrote field notes and transcribed the interviews. Data collected and transcribed amounted to approximately 200 pages. In line with an interpretive approach to data analysis, I developed reconstructive analyses in order to understand participants’ actions within their own webs of meaning (Carspecken, 1996; Erickson, 1986; Geertz, 1973). Then the reconstructive analysis and descriptive accounts were coded to create a systematic way to group like interactions and compare interaction types. I developed thematic codes to describe each of the events; this enabled me to classify and count the interactions. Coding allowed me to quantify the patterns observed in interracial interactions (See Appendix B). As appropriate, I used statistics generated from observations and student surveys to confirm, augment, and challenge initial interpretations. Throughout the data analysis process, I looked for disconfirming as well as confirming evidence in order to create accurate and nuanced accounts of girls’ playground interactions (Erickson, 1986).

Race, Space, and Girls’ Interactions on Urban Playgrounds    117

Girls’ Same-Race and Mixed-Race Actions and Interactions In this section, I present emergent patterns about girls’ actions and interactions that characterize my data. I have organized the presentation of the patterns I found through my data analysis to accomplish two things. First, I will describe the predominate kinds of interactions between African-American and Latina girls that I observed on the playground and that I learned about through interviews and survey data. Second, building on the foundation I provide regarding the types of interactions on the playground, I will discuss the nature of these interactions—specifically focusing on conflicts and cooperative activities between and within African-American and Latina girls’ groups. Girls’ Peer Groups and Playground Activities In order to get a sense of girls’ social interaction patterns on the playground, I first looked generally at how girls interacted with each other and at whether such interactions were interracial or intra-racial. The patterns that follow explain in detail my observations of primarily African-American and Latina girls’ interactions. Across schools, girls-only groups tended to be comprised of same-race groups more often than mixed-race groups, and same-race girl groups seemed to engage in different playground activities than mixed-race girl groups. Pattern 1: Same-race girls’ groups were observed interacting more often than mixed-race girls’ groups. Of the 104 observed instances of girls-only peer group interactions, over half of these were comprised of girls of the same race. As shown in Table 7.2, same-race girls’ groups were observed 61 times as compared with 43 observations of mixed-race girls’ groups. Although these differences are not dramatic, girls tended to play with other girls of their own race more frequently than with girls of other races. There are several possible explanations for this observed pattern. First, it is possible that girls feel somewhat more comfortable interacting with other girls of the same race. Language, in particular, might perhaps explain the observed pattern of more same-race girls’ groups. For example, there were several occurrences of Latina girls speaking in Spanish to one another: One girl is swinging on the rings and a second girl joins her to swing alongside her on the adjacent monkey bars. They go in the in same direction, back and forth, about four times. Both girls appear to be Latina and I can hear

118    E. S. FULBECK that they are speaking Spanish. They stop swinging on the bars, jump off the structure, and begin to dig and push bark chips around into piles, still talking to each other in Spanish.

The higher incidence of same-race girls’ groups could also possibly be explained by the demographic characteristics of the observed schools. Nottingham, Morro, and Bailey Elementary Schools, in particular, were predominately Latino/a, making it much less likely that Latina girls would even have the opportunity to interact with girls of different races. For that same reason, of course, African-American girls at these three schools would have a much greater chance of interacting with girls of different races. A school’s racial composition can greatly impact children’s interracial interactions, possibly affecting racial interaction patterns. That is, I might have observed more instances of same-race girls’ groups as a function of the school’s racial composition rather than any preferential choice of friends based on race. However, it is important to note that same-race girls’ groups were more prevalent at Howard and Cleveland Elementary Schools as well, both of which have somewhat even distributions of Latino and AfricanAmerican children. Finally, it is possible that this difference is due only to the restricted data collected in this study. Given limited time and resources, the data were collected only from a small sample of relatively similar schools. Had I been able to observe more and varied schools, this pattern might be different. Further research on different schools, serving varying populations of students, would strengthen or challenge this pattern. Table 7.2  Girls’ Playground Activities by Racial Groups Same-race interactions

Mixed-race interactions

Jump rope Swings Tag Play structure Tetherball Talking

4 6 4 11 5 16

12 1 1 2 7 12

Total

61

43

Activity

Note: Totals include observations of girls-only peer groups engaged in other activities besides the six activities listed above. Thus, total observations of same- and mixed-race girls’ groups are greater than disaggregated observations by activities.

Race, Space, and Girls’ Interactions on Urban Playgrounds    119

Pattern 2: Girls’ group activities span a range of different types. Perhaps unremarkably, girls-only groups tended to engage in a range of different activities. On both the student survey administered at Howard Elementary and in my playground observations across the five schools, girls most often engaged in jump rope, tag, playing on the play structure, swings, tetherball, and talking. These activities were dominated by girls overall at the schools observed. This follows some patterns observed by researchers studying girls’ playground activities on the LLI Project (LLI Center for Research Strategies, 2003). They argued that girls gravitated towards activities that generally required less physical activity and less physical contact. In some ways, the observations I made of girls-only group activities differed from the LLI project findings. Several of the activities that I observed girlsonly groups engaged in actually required quite high levels of physical activity (e.g., jump rope and tag). Thus, more research may be needed to understand why certain activities appear more “girl friendly” than others. Of the girls-only group activities, talking was by far the most frequently observed (see Table 7.2). It is likely that talking was the most frequently observed girls-only group activity because it can be done before or after other activities. Talking can also occur during another activity; however, observations were coded “talking” for the purposes of this study only in the absence of other activities. That is, a group of girls talking and jumping rope would be coded “jump rope” rather than “talking.” However, a group of girls talking before or after jumping rope—possibly waiting for a turn to play—were coded “talking.” Additionally, as talking does not require any equipment or require girls to wait their turn, there were more opportunities for girls to readily engage in talking than there were opportunities for them to participate in activities that required specific equipment or could only accommodate a limited number of people at a time. Following talking, jumping rope and playing on the play structure were the second and third most frequently observed activities. Jump rope was a constant activity amongst girls-only groups at all five schools, but the size of the games varied greatly. A large game of jump rope, complete with a song all the girls knew, was observed at Cleveland Elementary: The same seven girls are still playing jump rope: one White, three AfricanAmerican, three Latina. I stop to watch a group of girls playing jump rope. They have tied two jump ropes together so that they have a longer rope. There is a girl turning the rope at each end (two girls) and two girls jumping. The other girls wait their turn and sing along with the song that they all seem to know.

120    E. S. FULBECK

This is a mixed-race girls’ group that appears to have played together before because they are subbing in and out of the game without verbalizing the rules (as far as I could tell) and all know the same song. The song ends with the line, “How many boyfriends does she got?” Then the rope turners and girls waiting to jump count the number of successful jumps the jumper is able to complete, and this becomes the number of boyfriends she has. While I observed some giggling and teasing of jumpers who were able to complete many jumps—as they now also had many boyfriends—it seemed desirable to jump as many times in a row as possible. The embarrassment of being teased for having “many boyfriends” appeared to be outweighed by showing off one’s ability to jump many times in a row without a mistake. In contrast to this large game of jump rope, I also observed girls playing alone or with just one other girl. On a different day at Cleveland Elementary, I observed, “Two African-American girls approach me. They have one single, small jump rope and want to show me how many times they can jump in a row. They seem very happy to be talking with an adult.” After showing me how many times they could jump, one of the girls went to talk with a different African-American girl and the other jumped rope around the playground by herself. Thus, jump rope may be attractive in part because it can be done with a group or alone. Additionally, it can be a simple or complex game, depending on number of players, additional rules, or songs the girls incorporate. The play structure is likely popular among girls’ peer groups for similar reasons. Like jump rope, girls can play with a group or individually on the play structure. In addition, it can be the center of a complex game of tag or “monster”4 or just a place for girls to climb, swing, and slide. Of the five playgrounds observed in this study, four had redeveloped playgrounds that included new, brightly colored play structures. These structures were designed considering elementary school-aged children’s developmental levels and included many unique features, such as tic-tac-toe, climbing ropes, rock-climbing walls, and “fireman” poles. Although the one school that did not have a redeveloped playground—Bailey Elementary—also had large numbers of girls on the play structure, the newness and excitement around the new play structures may have contributed to girls’ frequent use of them. Both jump rope and play structures provided girls with an activity that they could do with others or alone, could be simple or complex, and in which they could be active without being physically aggressive or competitive. As such, girls may like to play activities that are flexible enough to accommodate different people and preferences for play. Pattern 3: Same-race girls’ groups tended to prefer different activities than mixed-race girls’ groups. Despite similar engagement among some activities, same- and mixedrace girls’ groups tended to prefer different games. As Table 7.2 shows,

Race, Space, and Girls’ Interactions on Urban Playgrounds    121

swings, tag, talking, and playing on the play structure were more common among same-race girls’ groups; playing jump rope and tetherball were more common among mixed-race girls’ groups. Though most of these differences were slight, there were eight more observations of mixed-race girls’ groups engaged in jump rope than same-race girls’ groups and nine more observations of same-race girls’ groups playing on the play structure than mixed-race girls’ groups. The explanation for such differences was not clear, although popularity of both jump rope and the play structure likely contributed to these patterns. The larger number of mixed-race girls’ groups observed playing jump rope might partially be explained by the game’s popularity and the limited number of jump ropes available at each school. Although I was unable to count the number of ropes available at each school, I did observe several instances of adults managing the ropes so that all children who wanted to play would be able to do so. Additionally, both Morro and Howard had equipment monitors who ensured jump ropes were returned at the end of recess. Thus, there often seemed to be more children who wanted to play jump rope than ropes available. It would follow that girls might join a jump rope game regardless of the other girls’ races because of the popularity of the game and the scarcity of ropes. Although I am purely speculating, had more ropes been available, the number of observed mixed-race girls’ groups engaged in jump rope might have decreased. It is possible that playing jump rope was more important to girls than who they played with. The larger number of same-race girls’ groups observed on the play structure might also be due in part to the popularity and size of the play structure. The play structure was very heavily used, and many girls tended to play on just a part of the structure. Girls would spend time just on the slides, just on the monkey bars, or just on the tic-tac-toe board. Although girls observed on the slides and girls observed on the monkey bars were both using the play structure, they were not engaged in the same activity. In contrast to the limited supply of jump ropes, the play structures at all five schools had enough space for a variety of different activities in separate places, and two of the schools had more than one play structure. Thus, unlike jump rope, where girls may have had to interact with girls of different races if they wanted to play, the play structure was large enough that girls could play with girls of their same race if they chose to. Distinct girls’ groups did not interact unless one group moved locations on the play structure (e.g., by moving from the slides to the monkey bars). Given that same-race girls’ groups were observed more often than mixed-race girls’ groups, it is possible that same-race peer groups are the preference of more girls. If this is the case and girls tend to primarily “default” to same-race groups, the disconfirming pattern of more mixed-race girls’ groups playing jump rope might be explained by the scarcity of ropes.

122    E. S. FULBECK

Following this same logic, the confirming pattern of more same-race girls’ groups on the play structure might be explained by the size and variety of activities included in the play structures. Girls on the play structures did not have to engage with girls of a different race because the structures were large and had many different types of resources for play. Girls’ Conflicts Having observed the frequency and nature of same- and mixed-race girls’ groups, I examined the data further to determine whether there were any patterns in the types of interactions that occurred within these groups. This section looks in detail at conflicts observed on the playground and conflicts described by girls during interviews. Generally, conflicts were observed and described less frequently in same-race girls’ groups and more frequently in mixed-race girls’ groups. Pattern 4: Conflict was observed and described less in same-race girls’ groups than in mixed-race girls’ groups. Same-race girls’ group conflict.  The observed and described conflicts that arose in same-race girls’ groups were dramatically fewer compared with mixed-race girls’ groups. In fact, only one same-race conflict was observed, and no same-race conflicts were described to me during interviews with girls. The only same-race conflict was observed at Cleveland Elementary. I saw a group of young African-American girls huddled in a tight circle talking very loudly and in an animated way and went over to investigate. As described in my field notes, I ask the girls what is going on and come to find out that Raven (1st grade) has called Ebony a “skank” and told her that she “smells like booty.” Additionally, Raven pushed Ebony. I don’t know what provoked Raven’s behavior but there are six African-American girls all talking about it. There is a lot of discussion about how, if there is a physical fight, then they will all get involved. Family relations seem to play a key role, for there are comments like, “Well Raven is my cousin, so if Ebony do anything to her, then I’m gonna have to fight her cousin.”

In an “observer comment” embedded in my field notes, I described my shock at the way these girls were talking to each other. They seemed very young to be speaking this way. I wrote, “While I doubt that they know exactly what a ‘skank’ is, they seem to know that it is a powerful insult and appear to believe that physical fighting is a reasonable way to solve this dispute.” I am unsure whether my presence or the girls’ yelling attracted the attention of Mr. Hart, the playground monitor, but he came over to investi-

Race, Space, and Girls’ Interactions on Urban Playgrounds    123

gate as well. He did not ask the girls what was going on or why they were fighting; rather, he simply told them, “End it.” They seemed to listen to him and broke apart. At about the same time, the bell rang, signaling the end of lunch recess. The girls joined their respective class lines and entered the building. I stayed to chat with Mr. Hart who asked me at that point if I heard why the girls were fighting. I told him I was not sure what prompted the conflict but that there had been name-calling between Ebony and Raven and talk of a fight to settle the dispute. He told me that Ebony’s family was going through a really rough period—both she and her brother recently moved into a homeless shelter with their mother—and he had noticed she was “acting up” at school. Without knowing the reasons behind the conflict between the two girls, it is difficult to speculate as to what could have prevented this conflict. Furthermore, without talking to the girls involved in the conflict, I do not have any sense of whether Mr. Hart’s intervention was sufficient to resolve the conflict or not. The conflict appeared to end after Mr. Hart intervened, but it could have continued into the classroom or flared up again later. Mr. Hart’s observation about Ebony’s increasingly disruptive and aggressive behavior seemed directly related to her family situation. It seems reasonable to assume that if and when her home life stabilizes, she will be involved in fewer conflicts. The absence of other examples of conflict in same-race girls’ groups is what actually suggests this pattern. Thus, it is impossible to make conjectures about various reasons and resolutions of conflict in same-race girls’ groups without additional information. There were however, many more observed and described instances of conflict in mixed-race girls’ groups. Mixed-race girls’ group conflict.  In contrast to the one observation of conflict in same-race girls’ groups, four instances of conflict were observed in mixed-race girls’ groups. In addition, four other instances of mixed-race conflict were described by girls during interviews and focus groups. Of the four observed instances of conflict in mixed-race girls’ groups, three were during games of jump rope and one was after school. The observed instances of conflict tended to arise because jump rope rules had been violated. In one instance a girl was accused of cutting in line; in another, a girl was accused of intentionally turning the rope too slowly. The third mixed-race conflict during jump rope appeared to be ongoing and was observed repeatedly over several days. The following excerpt from my field notes describes the incident (OC refers to “observer comment”): A white girl tries to start jumping, but a Latina girl yells at her that it is not her turn, and she needs to get in line. She backs away from the rope and stands behind some other girls.

124    E. S. FULBECK OC: It is hard to tell who is actually in line because the girls start to jump from either side and are standing around in relative closeness to the rope, but they do not form a “traditional” single-file line. I don’t know whether the white girl really was in line or not. The White girl approaches Mr. Hart (who is still standing next to me) and says, “Those girls won’t let me play.” Mr. Hart says loudly to the other girls, “Hey, if she don’t get to play, then no one gets to play!” A Latina girl invites the white girl to jump with her. “Come, come,” she says. The white girl walks towards her, but they don’t end up jumping together because two other girls, both African-American, start jumping first. After about a minute, Mr. Hart asks the group of girls, “Has she had a turn yet?” (In reference to the white girl who had just tattled). She has not, so an African-American girl who is jumping tells her to join and she does, eventually getting a turn to jump. OC: This situation is a little unclear without knowing more about these girls, their relationship, and previous friendship dynamics. While it’s true that the white girl did not get a turn to jump prior to asking Mr. Hart to interfere on her behalf, I also never saw her assert herself and ask to jump. Is she an outsider in this group? Is she just shy? Does she normally play with these girls? Do they frequently exclude her? Does she frequently “tattle” on them and ask Mr. Hart and/or another adult to help her get involved in their games?

As suggested by my observer comments, it was unclear how this conflict started. Does the white girl frequently tattle on the other girls, making her unpopular? Do the other girls frequently exclude her, forcing her to seek assistance if she wants to be included in the jump rope game? From this observation, it is uncertain. However, the following week I observed a similar situation involving the same girls: One white girl, the same girl that was excluded from the jump rope game last week, is standing near two other observers. She seems to be pointing towards the game while talking to one of them. OC: It again appears that this girl is being excluded from the game. I wonder if she is “telling” on the other girls. Eventually, the same white girl joins the game. She is turning the rope with a Latina girl and one other Latina and one African-American girl are jumping. The rope hits one of the jumpers and all three girls yell at the white girl. She yells back, “I didn’t do it!”

Although this second observation occurred a week later, it appears the same mixed-race girls’ group is involved in conflict during jump rope. It seems from both these observations that the white girl is an outsider who often seeks adult assistance to enter the game of jump rope. Perhaps considering my earlier speculation about the frequency of mixed-race girls’ groups playing jump rope together because of limited ropes, conflict during mixed-

Race, Space, and Girls’ Interactions on Urban Playgrounds    125

race jump rope games is not surprising. If girls are playing together out of necessity (to use a jump rope) rather than by choice, conflict might arise. Girls also described four other instances of mixed-race conflict during interviews that did not involve jump rope. Consider the following exchange between Tiffany and Anny, both African-American 5th graders and Diana, a Latina 5th grader during a focus group at Cleveland Elementary:



Tiffany: Well I had to go to a camp with all Whites and Mexicans . . . EF: Was that hard or was that OK? Tiffany: Yeah, kinda. Cause they kinda got on my nerves and they was Mexican so I don’t know Mexican so I couldn’t really talk to them. Anny: It’s just like some kids here. I know I get sick and tired of hearing the Latino people talk to the other ones cause they just be like, “Yadda, yadda yadda . . .” EF: What do the rest of you think about that? Diana: Sometimes I get mad at black people cause they get mad at us and say, “Stop talkin’ Spanish; it’s America.” And they say that if you talk Spanish, you have to go back to Mexico and stuff like that. And I don’t like that. Tiffany: But like the problem is, when y’all talk Spanish, y’all look at us so we always think that cause black people like, when they talkin’ about somebody, they always look at you at the same time and when they sayin’ something bad. And that’s what y’all do and so we think that y’all talkin’ bout us.

This exchange suggests the two most populous racial groups at Cleveland Elementary tended to direct social frustrations, including those about race, towards each other. These girls seem to blame each other for their problems and worries—insecurities about gossip, language barriers, and even larger issues about immigration. In a separate interview, a 5th grade girl from Howard Elementary explained the following incident that suggested interracial conflict between girls: . . . last year when my friend Tatiana came to school, she was new, and so was Veronica and they really didn’t like each other, because back then, there was a group of Mexicans and a group of blacks, and so the girls were going to go and fight each other, but—for some stupid reason, I don’t even remember— because somebody lied on Veronica and said she was talking about us, but she really wasn’t because Veronica is such a good person, and so, she was getting mad and Tatiana started calling her names. And, then she just started walking away. And then Tatiana came up and pushed her and so, um, Veronica got mad and she walked faster. And, all the Mexicans were with Veronica.

126    E. S. FULBECK

As this incident indicates, there were interracial conflicts between girls at multiple schools. However, it should be noted here that it is unclear from these data whether the conflicts were a result of race relations or whether racial insults and slurs served to fuel a conflict that started for other reasons. That said, there were significantly more instances of mixed-race girls’ group conflict as compared to conflict observed or described by same-race girls’ groups. Girls’ Cooperation The observations of girls’ friendship and cooperative behavior were more evenly matched between same- and mixed-race girls’ groups than were observations of conflict. Examples of behavior that were counted as cooperative include: pushing on the swings, sharing, and physical affection. There were nine observed instances of cooperation between samerace girls’ groups as compared to seven observed instances of cooperation between mixed-race girls’ groups. Girls’ cooperative interactions are described in detail below. Pattern 6: Cooperation was observed more in same-race girls’ groups than in mixed-race girls’ groups. Same-race girls’ group cooperation.  There were slightly more cooperative behaviors and instances of friendship demonstrated in same-race girls’ groups than in mixed-race girls’ groups. Same-race friendship seemed to be demonstrated across a wide variety of activities, including jump rope, play structure, tag, talking, swinging, and practicing dance moves. Often, cooperative behaviors and friendship were demonstrated by physical contact between girls. For example, a group of Latina girls were observed on the swings at Nottingham Elementary: There were nine children in the area and all of them were Latinas. There were no adults or boys in the area. Six of the girls were swinging and two others were pushing two girls on the swings (in the same friendly manner that has been going on all morning). There was no other activity going on in the swing area and the rule of one student per swing was still being observed.

The girls pushing the other girls on the swings were cooperating and helping. Additionally, the group appeared to take turns on the swings, as there were only six swings. Also displaying physical contact, at Morro Elementary I observed, “Three Latinas walk around the perimeter of the playground together talking Spanish. They are linked at the elbows.”

Race, Space, and Girls’ Interactions on Urban Playgrounds    127

Another group of African-American girls were observed teaching each other dance moves at Cleveland Elementary. I observed, “Three AfricanAmerican girls talk together and practice dance moves. They do not have a coordinated dance, but one girl is repeating one or two moves for the other two girls. Then the others try to duplicate the move and so on and so forth.” It appeared that the girl who initially demonstrated the dance moves would then give the other two feedback on their efforts. Same-race girls’ groups tended to demonstrate cooperation and friendship by sharing, showing, talking, laughing, and touching. Given the broad variety of activities cooperative behavior was observed in among same-race girls’ groups, it is reasonable to conclude that such behavior occurs in most of the activities that girls-only groups were engaged in. It would be interesting to further explore other activities—perhaps those that require competition—to see if same-race girls’ groups continue to exhibit cooperative behavior. Mixed-race girls’ group cooperation.  Although cooperative behaviors and demonstrations of friendship were more evenly observed in same- and mixed-race interactions than conflict, mixed-race girls’ groups had slightly less observed cooperative behaviors. Similar to cooperative behaviors observed in same-race girls’ groups, cooperative behaviors observed in mixed-race girls’ groups occurred across a variety of activities. Cooperative behavior was demonstrated in mixed-race girls’ groups during jump rope, tag, talking, tetherball, and practicing dance moves. Unlike observations of same-race girls’ groups, there were no observed instances of cooperative behavior in mixed-race girls’ groups on the play structure, but there were cooperative behaviors observed during tetherball, which was not observed in same-race girls’ groups. At Nottingham Elementary, I observed, One African-American girl comes up to a Latina girl and stands next to her by the tetherball courts. Then she swings her hips towards the Latina girl and bumps her hips. They smile at each other and say something I can’t make out. OC: It seems like these two girls are friends; it does not seem like it was a hard bump but rather, a friendly one. Again, physical contact as a demonstration of friendship was observed in mixed-race girls’ groups as well as same-race girls’ groups.

I also observed a similar dance practice between a mixed-race girls’ group at Cleveland Elementary. I note, “There is a group of about six girls, including Latinas and African-Americans, that are on the far side of the playground. They are doing a dance routine together all in a line. I am curious about what they are doing and start to walk over to the group of girls.” The other observation I made of girls cooperating while practicing dance moves was also at Cleveland Elementary. Perhaps the girls learned

128    E. S. FULBECK

the dance moves during physical education class or during an assembly. Either way, their cooperative participation in this activity does not seem to be affected by the racial make-up of their peer groups; both same- and mixedrace girls’ groups were observed helping each other practice dance moves. As in same-race girls’ groups, mixed-race girls’ groups tended to demonstrate cooperation and friendship by sharing, showing, talking, laughing, and touching. Although there were slightly fewer observed instances of mixed-race girls’ groups demonstrating friendship and cooperation, this slight difference does not seem substantial. For the most part, mixed-race girls’ groups engaged cooperatively in activities similar to girls in same-race groups. Mixed-race girls’ groups were observed in general less than samerace girls’ groups but tended to have only slightly fewer observed instances of cooperative behavior. Discussion As explained in detail above, this study sought to address the question, Do the activities and nature of girls’ social interactions differ in same- vs. mixed-race girls’ groups on urban playgrounds? Based on the analysis of my data, I found that groups tended to be comprised of girls of the same race more often than of girls of different races. That said, both same- and mixed-race girls’ groups engaged in similar playground activities, but at different rates. Games on the play structure were more popular with same-race girls’ groups, while games of jump rope were more popular with mixed-race girls’ groups. Same-race girls’ groups had fewer observed or described conflicts and more observed cooperative behavior. In contrast, mixed-race girls’ groups had more observed and described conflicts and slightly less observed cooperative behavior. Results of this study support patterns in the extant literature in some ways but also raise additional questions. For example, my review of the literature on the influence of gender and race on girls’ social interactions suggested that girls would engage in more close, intimate activities and interactions. Indeed, I found both same- and mixed-race girls’ groups tended to engage in social activities that could accommodate many people but were more often played in smaller groups. Additionally, the extant literature suggested girls would tend to form same-race groups more frequently than mixed-race girls’ groups. Results from this study support this pattern as well. However, the findings on differences in activities for same- vs. mixed-race girls’ groups and the associated differences in cooperative and conflict interactions raise questions not addressed in the literature. Would conflict in mixed-race girls’ groups be alleviated if there were more jump ropes available? Would

Race, Space, and Girls’ Interactions on Urban Playgrounds    129

conflict in mixed-race girls’ groups persist if this study were replicated on a larger scale and in schools that served different populations? These findings raise interesting questions about girls’ use of space on the playground and how playground design and access to equipment might foster or inhibit certain interactions. Research related to children’s actions and interactions during unstructured play time and recess suggests playground designs similar to those of the restructured LLI playgrounds foster cooperative play and positive social interactions (Barbour, 1999). However, research has also found that limited materials and equipment are likely to increase conflict between children (Malone & Tranter, 2003 as cited in Thian, 2006). Although LLI playgrounds are designed to foster cooperative play and social interactions, limited supplies of popular equipment, such as jump ropes, might have contributed to the increased instances of conflict observed during jump rope games. As such, findings that suggest more cooperation in same-race girls’ groups and more conflict in mixed-race girls’ groups might have less to do with the racial composition of the group and be better explained by the type of activity the girls were engaged in. Further research is necessary to better understand cooperative and conflicting interactions in girls’ play, but these findings suggest both the physical design of the playground and the availability of equipment might influence the nature of girls’ interactions. Notes 1. Positive social interactions are characterized by friendship behavior such as cooperation, affirmation, and sharing. 2. The courses were taken at the University of Colorado at Boulder as part of the required coursework for first-year doctoral students in education. 3. K–5th grade at all schools; Cleveland went to 6th grade, thus I observed 6th graders at this school as well. 4. This was a game commonly played by children on the play structure at both Bailey and Nottingham. One child—the “monster”—would growl and try to grab the legs of the other children from below the play structure. If tagged by the monster, that child became the new monster.

References Ashenfelter, O., Collins, W. J., & Yoon, A. (2006). Evaluating the role of Brown vs. Board of Education in school equalization, desegregation, and the income for African Americans. (Working Paper 11394). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

130    E. S. FULBECK Barbour, A. (1999). The impact of playground design on the play behaviors of children with different levels of physical competence. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14(1), 75–98. Beresin, A. (2002). Children’s expressive culture in light of September 11, 2001. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 33(3), 331–337. Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge. Clement, D. C., Eisenhart, M., & Wood, J. R. (1976). School desegregation and educational inequality: Trends in the literature, 1960–1975. In D. Matthews, H. Hodgkinson, H. Delaney, & R. Rist (Eds.), The desegregation literature: A critical appraisal (pp. 1–78). Washington, DC: The National Institute of Education. Dawkins, M. P. & Braddock II, J. H. (1994). The continuing significance of desegregation: School racial composition and African American inclusion in American society. The Journal of Negro Education, 63(3), 394–405. Eisenhart, M. A. & Holland, D. C. (1983). Learning gender from peers: The role of peer groups in the cultural transmission of gender. Human Organization, 42(4), 321–332. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan. Gearing, F. O., Carroll, T., Richter, L., Grogan-Hurlick, P., Smith, A., Hughes, W., Tendall, B. A., Precourt, W., & Topfer, S. (1979). Working paper 6. In F. O. Gearing and L. Sangree, (Eds.) Toward a cultural theory of education and schooling (pp. 9–38). The Hague: Mouton. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz, (Ed.), The Interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books. Gerson, J. & Peiss, K. (1985). Boundaries, negotiation, consciousness: Reconceptualizing gender relations. Social Problems, 32, 317–331. Graham, J. A., & Cohen, R. (1997). Race and sex as factors in children’s sociometric ratings and friendship choices. Social Development, 6(3), 355–372. Gross, J. S. (1997, April 9–12). Reducing stereotyping among 4th through 6th grade students by strengthening self-esteem, interpersonal relationships, and multicultural appreciation. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference and Exhibition of the Association for Childhood Education, Portland, OR. Accessed February 20, 2007 from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED402075.pdf. Huston, A. C. (1985). The development of sex-typing: Themes from recent research. Developmental Review, 5, 1–17. Johnson, M. & Marini, M. (1998). Bridging the racial divide in the United States: The effect of gender. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 247–258. Kraft, L. W. & Vraa, C. W. (1975). Sex composition of groups and patterns of selfdisclosure by high-school females. Psychological Reports, 37, 733–734. Koslin, S., Koslin B., & Pargament, R. (1972). Classroom racial balance and student’s interracial attitudes. Sociology of Education, 45, 386–407. Leaper, C. (1991). Influence and involvement in children’s discourse: Age, gender, and partner effects. Child Development, 62(4), 797–811.

Race, Space, and Girls’ Interactions on Urban Playgrounds    131 Learning Landscapes Initiative Center for Research Strategies. (2003). Evaluation of the Learning Landscapes Playground. Retrieved January 29, 2009 from, http:// www.learninglandscapes.org/ Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520. Malone, K., & Tranter, P. (2003). Children’s environmental learning and the use, design and management of schoolgrounds. Children, Youth and Environments, 13(12). Accessed February 20, 2007 from http://www.colorado.edu/journals/ cye/13_2/Malone_Tranter/ChildrensEnvLearning.htm. Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1983). A cultural approach to male–female miscommunication. In J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 195–216). New York: Cambridge University Press. Orfield, G. & Lee, C. (2006). Racial transformation and the changing nature of racial segregation. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project. Full version can be retrieved from: http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/deseg/Racial_Transformation.pdf Sagar, A., Schofield, J., & Snyder, H. (1983). Race and gender barriers: Preadolescent peer behavior in academic classrooms. Child Development, 54, 1032–1040. Schofield, J., & Sagar, A. (1977). Peer interaction patterns in an integrated middle school. Sociometry, 40, 130–138. Schofield, J. & Whitley, Jr., B. (1983). Peer nomination vs. rating scale measurement of children’s peer preferences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 242–251. Schwartz, G. (1972). Youth culture: An anthological approach. Module in Anthropology, No. 17. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Singleton, L. C. & Asher, S. R. (1977). Peer preferences and social interaction among third grade children in an integrated school district. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 330–336. Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observations. New York: Reinhart and Winston. St. John, N. (1975). School desegregation: Outcomes for children. New York: Wiley. Thian, D. (2006). The importance of play. Curriculum Leadership, 4(24). Retrieved June 10, 2008 from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/default. asp?issueID=10395 Thorne, B. (2004). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Wagley, C. W. (1952). Race and class in rural Brazil. New York, Columbus University Press.

132    E. S. FULBECK

Appendix A Student Survey Please answer the following questions about friendship and your friends. For some questions you many check m ore than one answer—read the question carefully! 1. When choosing your friends or people to hang out with, what things do you look for in them? Check as many good friend traits as apply:          

⃞   SIMILAR INTERESTS ⃞   SAME GENDER AS YOU ⃞   FUNNY ⃞   SAME LANGUAGE AS YOU ⃞   SMART

⃞   LIVES CLOSE TO YOU ⃞   SAME RACE AS YOU ⃞   NICE ⃞   LOOKS LIKE YOU

2. Think about your friends for a moment. Do most of your friends look like you (same gender, race, hair color, eye color, etc.) or different from you? Check only one.          

⃞   SAME AS ME ⃞   MOSTLY THE SAME AS ME ⃞   HALF THE SAME AS ME AND HALF DIFFERENT THAN ME ⃞   MOSTLY DIFFERENT THAN ME ⃞   ALL DIFFERENT THAN ME

3. What activities do you like to do with friends at school? Check as many activities as apply.                    

⃞   JUMP ROPE ⃞   BASKETBALL ⃞   FOOTBALL ⃞   LACROSSE ⃞   TAG/CHASE ⃞   TETHERBALL ⃞   PLAY STRUCTURE ⃞   TALK ⃞   WALK ⃞   SIT

4. From the list above choose ONE activity that you do the most during recess. Write this activity: ____________________________________________________

Race, Space, and Girls’ Interactions on Urban Playgrounds    133

5. How often do you and your friends do this activity? ­      ⃞ EVERY DAY      ⃞ 3 OR 4 DAYS A WEEK      ⃞ 1 OR 2 DAYS A WEEK 6. Do these children look like friends to you?

       

⃞   DEFINITELY FRIENDS ⃞   PROBABLY FRIENDS ⃞   PROBABLY NOT FRIENDS ⃞   DEFINITELY NOT FRIENDS

  Why do you think this? _____________________________________________   _____________________________________________________________________ 7. Some people only feel comfortable being friends with people of the same gender and race as them. Do you think this is a good or bad thing?   ⃞  IT IS GOOD TO BE FRIENDS WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN YOU   ⃞  IT IS NOT GOOD OR BAD TO BE FRIENDS WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN YOU   ⃞  IT IS BAD TO BE FRIENDS WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN YOU

134    E. S. FULBECK

Appendix B Participant and Thematic Codes Participant Codes: A. Girls only B. Boys only C. Girls and boys D. Same race interactions E. 2 race interactions F. 3+ race interactions G. Adult interaction H. Observer interaction I. White adult comment J. Minority adult comment Descriptive Codes: 1. Separate-and-together : This code marks behavior where children are in the same vicinity and may be playing next to each other but are not actually interacting with each other. Thus, the children are only sharing physical space. 2. Exclusion : When a group or individual prohibits another from participating in an activity or conversation. Could convey exclusion verbally or non-verbally. 3. Seeking adult assistance : When children call an adult to assist them with something. The child may be seeking adult involvement because they need help or for another reason (ex: they are “tattling” and may want to involve the adult to get others in trouble). 4. Seeking adult attention : Differs from former code in that children are not talking with or approaching the adult for help with something/ one but, rather, to have the adult’s attention and spend time near or with the adult. 5. Games with non-traditional rules : Games that are traditional that children play with a set of rules not usually connected to that game. Rules could either be made up as they go or routines that the children all seem to know and abide by. 6. Adult comment that is positive about interracial interactions (at school) : Any comment an adult who works at the school makes about positive, cooperative interracial interactions that occur at the school. 7. Adult comment that is negative about interracial interactions (at school) : Any comment an adult who works at the school makes about negative, antagonistic, or segregated interactions that occur at the school.

Race, Space, and Girls’ Interactions on Urban Playgrounds    135

8. Adult comment that is neutral about interracial interactions (at school) : Any comment an adult who works at the school makes about neutral or inconsequential interracial interactions that occur at the school. 9. Adult comment that is dismissive about racial issues (at school) : Any comment an adult who works at the school makes that dismisses race as an issue relevant to their school; essentially, a colorblind outlook on student interactions. 10. Socio-Economic Status explanation for race relations : An explanation of interracial relations based on SES. Claims that interracial groups do or do not get along because of different or same SES. 11. Cultural explanation for race relations : An explanation of interracial relations based on culture. Claims that interracial groups do or do not get along because of their similar or different cultures, beliefs, values, and norms. 12. Psychological development explanation for race relations : An explanation of interracial relations, particularly among children, based on their psychological development. Claims that a child’s social skills, including interracial social skills, are contingent upon age, maturity, and development. 13. Structural explanation for race relations : An explanation of interracial interactions based on structural or institutionalized phenomenon. Race relations are formed in response or reaction to socio-economic and socio-political structures. 14. “Othering” : Similar to exclusion but noticed in adult comments and interactions as well. “Othering” is the process of distinguishing yourself (the speaker or actor) from the others. Often in the context of racial discussions and generally verbalized as “us” and “them.” 15. Positive interracial interaction : Any interracial interaction that appears positive in nature (i.e., sharing, cooperating, playing together, laughing, talking, helping, etc.) 16. Negative interracial interaction : Any interracial interaction that appears negative in nature (i.e., teasing, racial slurs, insults, physical aggression, verbal aggression, etc.) 17. Neutral or unclear interracial interactions : Any interracial interaction in which the nature is unclear due to lack of information 18. Effect of adult presence : Any time an interaction appears altered because of adult presence (past or present) 19. Verbal aggression : Any verbal insult or confrontation 20. Physical aggression : Any physical aggressive behavior such as, hitting, kicking, or pushing 21. Differing values of socialization skills by gender : Socialization skills are seen as more important and of greater value for girls than for boys. Any reaffirmation of this or example of this phenomena

136    E. S. FULBECK

22. Construction of gender : Society’s definition (or more accurately, construction) of what it means to be a “girl” or a “boy.” Includes characteristics and personality traits commonly associated with each gender 23. Insecurities : Any direct or indirect reference to insecurities that children have, which might affect their interracial and gendered friendships 24. Prioritization of friendship qualities : Any instance of friendship characteristics that are being prioritized when children select or play with friends 25. Racial/cultural pride : Comments or actions that indicate pride in one’s own culture and/or race 26. Gendered segregation : Children or adults who are segregated by gender 27. Racial segregation : Children or adults who are segregated by race/ ethnicity 28. Communication differences : Could be either an explanation for interracial relations or an observed disconnect in communication 29. Sports as a mediator of interracial interactions : Instances where organized sports provide opportunities for interracial interactions (varying in nature) or where someone references sports as a platform for interracial interactions 30. Children’s agency : Instances where children show agency by not succumbing to expectations or modeling of peers, adults, or society. Instances where children defy expectations of how they “should” act

Chapter 8

A Hallmark Moment? Barbara E. Polnick Gene Polnick

New baby girl Pink is your new color of love! May your lives be filled with the miracles That only a new baby girl can bring. —Stradling, 2007 It’s A Boy Oh, joy! A baby boy! Hoping your little bundle of blue Brings wonder and delight Your whole day through. And with you to guide him to be a man He’ll have the best that he possibly can! Congratulations! —Demby, 2007

“Greeting cards touch and enrich the lives of millions of Americans every day. They comfort, inspire, celebrate, make us laugh, and allow us to share our thoughts and emotions with others” (Greeting Card Association, 2007a, p. 1). Greeting cards have been one of our culture’s most popular ways of connecting with others for the past 150 years (GCA, 2007b). We only have Gender and Early Learning Environments, pages 137–150 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

137

138    B. E. POLNICK and G. POLNICK

to recall those touching Hallmark moment commercials with Grandma sitting in her rocking chair reading a card, smiling as a tear rolls down her cheek, to appreciate the impact a greeting card can have on our emotions. For some of us, our earlier memories include tearing open a greeting card from Grandma with a mushy message, and better yet, money inside. When one of us, Barbara, reflected on her early memories of greeting cards, she recalled a ritual of first reading the hand-written note—Granny’s precious redhead was loved and missed—then, quickly scanning the picture of the beautiful ballerina on the front—(a little disconcerting for someone who wore braces on her legs), and lastly, noting the greeting card message on the card—You bring such joy from year to year—Happy Birthday to a granddaughter so dear! Barbara now stores a few greeting card keepsakes in a photo box, but she traditionally keeps all of her cards for weeks after receiving them, rereading them occasionally. This ritual is one she has had since she was a very young girl. As we began preparing for this chapter, we read through our sets of keepsake cards once again. Each card had its own special message and set of expectations, but the levels of expectations were very different for Gene than Barbara. Gene recalls that his cards were filled with messages that said he could do anything, and he always felt good after reading his cards, confessing that he kept his cards way too long. Even as an adult, Barbara still finds herself striving to reach some of the expectations traditionally communicated in her cards: You are our pride and joy—you bring happiness to everyone! Greeting cards relay cultural expectations across generations through messages that include expectations for physical, social, and emotional attributes as well as expected behaviors for the card recipient (GCA, 2007a). Over time, these messages, along with subliminal, daily messages regarding abilities and worth, contribute to a child’s own self-image of who he is and of what she can become (Brownmiller, 1984; Caciappo & Andersen, 1981; Murphy, 1994; Wolfe, 1991). A child’s sense of self, then, “is a result of the multitude of ideas, attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs to which he or she is exposed” (Witt, 1997, p. 253). These expectations and beliefs about what we are and what we can be are reinforced throughout our lives in the subtle and not-so-subtle messages proudly categorized under cards for boys and cards for girls. Gender role expectations in particular are communicated through both the eloquently expressed Cinderella and the action-oriented Spiderman cards. Both the selection of pictures and the messages inside deliver different sets of expectations for girls and boys. Greeting cards have evolved over the last 500 years from ways of celebrating fortune and goodwill (American Greetings Company, 2007) into a way of communicating cultural expectations around the world (Adams, 2007). In this chapter, we report results of our research regarding the way these cultural norms, specifically gender role expectations, are communicated to

A Hallmark Moment?    139

young children through commercial greeting cards. Through a structured study of popular greeting cards, we analyzed the messages (both indirectly and directly communicated) that are conveyed to children regarding their own potential as well as gender role expectations as they play out in modern society. Included also is a discussion regarding how these cards can and do shape and sustain differentiated cultural and role expectations for boys and girls over time. We discovered that even after years of gender bias research and public awareness campaigns, these role expectations have changed very little over the past 25 years. The chapter is organized into four parts: (1) early socialization to gender roles; (2) greeting cards and the transmission of culture, values, and expectations; (3) greeting card and gender role expectations research; and (4) recommendations for parents, family, friends, and greeting card companies for creating and sending gender equitable messages. Early Socialization to Gender Roles From hair bows to spaceman onesies, both socialization and gender role identification begin with the expectations of parents and other family members (Birns, 1976; Karraker, Vogel, & Lake, 1995; Murphy, 1994; Shakin, Shakin, & Stemglanz, 1985). Over the past few decades, studies have documented the different reactions and behaviors of parents toward their babies based on their sex (Birns, 1976; Intons-Peterson & Reddel, 1984; Karraker, Vogel, & Lake, 1995; Shakin, Shakin, & Stemglanz, 1985; Sweeney & Bradbard, 1988). For example, Rubin, Provenzano, and Luria (1974) concluded in their study that when first-time parents were asked to describe their newborn babies just 24 hours after birth, parents of daughters described them as delicate, weak, and inattentive, while parents of boys described them as large, coordinated, and alert, although there was very little difference between the babies. In a similar study conducted by Fagot (1978), parents were shown an infant dressed in girls’ clothing and then dressed in boys’ clothing and their initial reactions were recorded. The girl baby was described as tiny, delicate, and precious, while the boy baby was described as a bruiser, big, or a future football player, even though there was only one infant. In a more recent, follow-up study, researchers Vogel, Lake, Evans, and Karraker (1991) also found that parents’ ratings of female infants centered on their small size and beauty while male infants were judged according to their ability and intelligence. These researchers concluded that while parents themselves may often claim little concern regarding the gender of a child, “knowledge of their own infant’s gender did influence perceptions of their infants’ physical characteristics, despite the lack of observable physical differences between [infant] boys and girls” (p. 700). These perceptions,

140    B. E. POLNICK and G. POLNICK

then, generate gender-differentiated parental expectations that, along with the resulting behavioral pressure on young children, yield behaviors consistent with societal norms for gender-typical behavior (Intons-Peterson & Reddel, 1984; Sandnabba & Ahlberg, 1999; Vogel et al., 1991). The first three to ten years of a child’s life appear to be the ideal time to examine gender role experiences in young children (Hendrick, 1996; Puckett & Black, 2005; Sandnabba & Ahlberg, 1999; Yelland & Grieshaber, 1998). As Witt (1997) noted, “children internalize parental messages regarding gender at an early age, with awareness of adult sex role differences being found in two-year-old children” (p. 253). Gordon and Browne (2000) concluded that by two or three years of age, children tend to correctly label themselves and others as girls or boys, choose same-sex playmates, select sex-typed toys and begin to exhibit sex-typed behaviors. Serbin (1988), in her research on the types of play activities boys and girls choose, found that by self-limiting their learning experiences, children can sometimes develop a pattern of uneven cognitive development or practice deficits that can later lead to student achievement gaps. In addition, messages from parents and caregivers historically communicate different expectations for girls and boys in terms of physical behavior—what is socially acceptable versus what warrants parent intervention (Yelland & Grieshaber, 1998). For example, in the 2002–2006 Head Start Impact Study which followed approximately 5,000 three- and four-year-old children who qualified for Head Start, parents reported that rearing young boys presents more challenges than rearing young girls and that they are less likely to use spanking for discipline with four-year-old girls than boys (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005). Gender stereotypes, such as all physicians are men and all teachers are women, may be learned from many different sources, such as: parent—child interactions, including approval or disapproval; role modeling; and reinforcement for desired behaviors (Witt, 1997). Consequently, much of a child’s ability to grow untethered by gender role expectations is dependent on parents’ beliefs and the beliefs of others that there are no limitations for boys and girls based on their gender. While gender roles can be comforting for parents and caregivers because they provide guidelines for behavior, they also can inhibit boys’ and girls’ visions of their potential contributions in a rapidly changing society. Greeting Cards and the Transmission of Culture, Values, and Expectations Although greeting cards can be traced to the ancient Chinese, who used them to celebrate a new year, the popularity of greeting cards for the masses

A Hallmark Moment?    141

did not begin until the mid 1400s with the invention of the printing press. Before then, greeting cards were an expensive means of communication, handmade and hand-delivered. Today’s more inexpensive cards “comfort, inspire, celebrate, make us laugh, and allow us to share our thoughts and emotions with others” (GCA, 2007b, p. 1). To what degree do greeting cards project the cultural norms and expectations of the day? Greeting cards have always been a popular method for passing on cultural norms and expectations (Bridges, 1993; Cacioppo & Andersen, 1981; Meister & Japp, 2002; West, 2004). Such cards provide insight into the use of language and imagery related to early socialization of children into expectations for success and behavior, including gender role expectations. In examining how parents communicated with their children on special occasions, Cacioppo and Andersen (1981) stated that greeting cards were a logical source of data and reported that “the choices that individuals make when purchasing greeting cards influence what designs and sentiments are subsequently available” (p. 115). Members of the Greeting Card Association (GCA) expressed a similar sentiment when they explained that the U.S. greeting card industry tapped “into the pulse of American culture” when creating products and continually designing cards that reflect America’s changing attitudes and lifestyles (GCA, 2007a, p. 1). If this is true, then the gender role messages found in greeting cards are a reflection of what Americans believe about the roles men and women should and do play in society today. Greeting Card and Gender Role Expectations Research In this section, we present three studies that explored gender role expectations in children’s greeting cards. These include studies by Bridges (1993), Murphy (1994), and our own current study. These studies revealed a differentiation of expectations for girls and boys in greeting cards. In 1993, Bridges analyzed baby congratulation cards to document the role that societal expectations played in gender stereotyping from the moment of birth (or earlier). He found that greeting cards welcoming the birth of a child conveyed gender-biased messages in the following ways: 1. Color-coding, which included pink for girls and blue for boys 2. Illustrations on boy cards that showed boys (usually older than an infant) engaged with balls, sports equipment, vehicles, and other objects suggesting action 3. Illustrations on girl cards that typically showed girls immobile in cribs or in baskets surrounded by rattles, flowers, and mobiles

142    B. E. POLNICK and G. POLNICK

4. Written messages that communicated stereotyped expectations, in which boys could be anything and girls were forever little girls, small, precious, and inactive. A study conducted by Murphy (1994) examined 180 Hallmark children’s cards on display during 1991 at a bookstore located in the Northeast United States. This included 101 Valentines and 79 Easter cards, which were most in demand at the time. According to Murphy, the visual and verbal messages in these holiday cards portrayed girls and boys as having different interests, activity levels, and characteristics. Murphy (1994) reported that in these cards, boys were active in their play and occupations, with the message that it is “acceptable for boys to be competitive, to act silly and to eschew emotion” (para. 1). Girls, on the other hand, were represented as passive, with their primary identifying characteristics being beauty (which they can achieve through various adornments) and sweetness. Murphy further found that in these greeting cards girls were described as coy and endearing, with their primary interests and activities directed toward shopping and entertaining others (ballerina, cheerleader, or actress). We examined greeting cards through a study in 2006, 12 years after the Murphy study. Interested in how gender expectations were communicated in modern cards, we analyzed over 190 cards from two leading greeting card companies, Hallmark and American Greetings. All cards available on the store shelves in three different categories on a given day were analyzed and then categorized by themes. Cards were separated into two categories on the store shelves: cards for girls and cards for boys. Card attributes were analyzed with respect to gender differences in each of three different types of children’s cards: (1) baby congratulations, (2) birthday greetings from parents, and (3) birthday greetings from grandparents. We identified attributes that might have implications for gender differences in each of the three types of cards. The three greeting card attributes that emerged with regard to gender differences were colors, themes (images and concepts), and language. A comparison of the cards collected in our study by gender and by types of cards yielded specific examples of gender stereotyping in 40 baby congratulations cards, 104 birthday cards from parents, and 48 birthday cards from grandparents. In general, we found that cards intended for girls contained language that either described girls’ physical appearance (cute, pretty), their relationships with others (stealing hearts), or a future based on fantasy (dream, wish), whereas boys were described in terms of their potential (opportunity, future success), their character (determined, winner), or their behavior (pride, energy). Specific data by categories are included in Table 8.1, which contains our observations of the greeting cards analyzed by gender, card categories, and attributes such as color, themes, and language. Our analysis is included in the following three sections: (1)

Colors Themes

Birthday—Parent

Birthday—Grandparent

Colors Themes Language

Baby Congratulations

Blue, brown Landscape photo or drawing, plant graphics, golf, baseball, cars, trucks, trains skateboards

Energy, world of delight, fast, fun, proud, major league, Winner, start of finish, on track, handsome, determined, strong, success

Language

Pink, green Dolls, Barbie, Disney characters and princesses, toy graphics, kittens and puppies, paper dolls, floral graphics Adorable, cute, sweet, nice, warm, thoughtful, giving, helpful, kind, dreams, specials, cuddly huge, style, grace, warmth, sincere, honest, you’re a doll, pursue dreams, allusions to picking flowers

Blue, red, brown, green, primary Pink, lilac, green Angular graphics, leaves, boats, cars, trucks, Delicate graphics, floral, flowers, pets, embossing, landscapes, wheat, guitars, balloons, stars cherubs Joy, pride, success, choice, you’re a keeper, counted Pride, warmth, caring, beautiful life, happiness, on, proud of, accomplishments, build, winner, dream, imagine, sketch, meaning, talented, loving, dreams for the future, successes, admire, respect, friend, honesty, kindness, thoughtful, fulfillment, courage, caring, make a difference just being you, self-confident, security, joy, angel smiles, answered prayer, opportunities, discoveries, plans working out, treasured memories, dreams of promise, tiny miracles, believe in yourself, precious, wonderful person, beautiful person

Pastel pink, yellow Bows, ruffles, scallops, Baby drawings Dream, wish, joy, peekaboo, sweet, precious, sleepy, snuggle, cozy, cute, pretty, delightful, “already stealing hearts”

Girl Cards

Gender

Pastel blue, yellow Teddy bears, blankets Hope, joy, pride, opportunity, fun, laughter, crawl, walk, jump, run

Boy Cards

Colors Themes

Language

Attributes

Card Categories

Table 8.1  An Analysis of Greeting Cards by Gender, Categories, and Attributes

A Hallmark Moment?    143

144    B. E. POLNICK and G. POLNICK

baby congratulations, (2) birthday cards from parents, and (3) birthday cards from grandparents. Baby Congratulations The colors in the 18 baby boy congratulations cards were predominantly blue or yellow. Themes that emerged from the pictures and designs of the cards included cuddly things or things that are carried (e.g., teddy bears, blankets). Language in boy cards focused on actions, fun or happy emotions, as well as achievements. In contrast, the 22 baby girl congratulations cards were predominantly pastel pink or yellow and portrayed themes of decorative drawings or clothing (i.e., ruffles, scallops). Language messages were related to personality and appearance with minimal attention to having fun and no images related to any action. Common elements for both boy and girl baby congratulations cards included the color, yellow, and the word, joy. Birthday Cards from Parents Over 104 birthday cards from parents were analyzed—48 cards for sons and 56 cards for daughters. Colors in cards for sons included primary colors and bright bold hues with high contrast, such as blue, red, brown, green. Designs and themes associated with boys illustrated boldness, movement, and activity (e.g., angular graphics, guitars). There were 14 expectations for success built into the messages for boys, with descriptions of sons in terms of courage and respect (e.g., you’re a keeper, you make a difference), all traits that rendered images of strength and high ability and that are admired by today’s society. Cards for daughters contained differences from the boys in the communications of expectations through the three attributes of color, theme/ design, and language. Colors for daughters were pastels (e.g., pink, lilac), while themes or graphics were delicate and ethereal (e.g., flowers, cherubs), suggesting a softer, less defined image. Only three cards of the 56 cards contained expectations for success. Messages on 15 cards related to emotions (e.g., warmth, caring, kindness) and fantasy (e.g., dreams of promise, treasured memories, tiny miracle), while three related to appearance (e.g., beautiful, precious) and three to relationships with others (e.g., fulfillment, our joy). The use of emotional descriptors tended to project daughters as being dependent, non-assertive, and not in control. Descriptors of relationships conveyed images of dependency, implying that girls needed others to succeed. All of these images suggested softer, weaker characteristics, seldom associated with leadership or success.

A Hallmark Moment?    145

Birthday Cards from Grandparents Birthday cards for boys from grandparents tended to reflect those of parents. Twenty-six grandson cards were analyzed for color, theme, and language. These cards were decorated in earth tones with landscape, transportation, or sports themes. Language contained high-energy words (e.g., go, fast, run) and images of success with lots of movement. In contrast, the 22 birthday cards for granddaughters were illustrated in floral tones, with themes of dolls, Disney, and cuddly pets. From Barbie to kittens, the language for girls was encased within a context of fantasy and soft images, with words such as sweet, warm, and cuddly. In summary, for all three types of cards (baby congratulations, birthday cards from parents, and birthday cards from grandparents), greetings intended for girls were focused on their physical appearance, their relationships with others, and some type of fantasy, such as a dream or wish for happiness. In contrast, greetings for boys included affirmations of their potential, their character, or behavior with words like winner, determined, and success. What Girls May Learn from Birthday Cards When every message communicated by parents and grandparents in greeting cards emphasizes good looks, mild or soft behavior, girls may think that these are the attributes valued most. Consequently, when they do not see themselves as beautiful or princess-like, it is possible they could perceive themselves as unworthy and not meeting expectations of family and friends. In addition, a girl’s ability to enhance relationships, as conveyed in many of the messages in greeting cards for girls, can be a powerful skill; however, little power is afforded someone who is given the responsibility of making others happy. We found no messages of expectation to rise to the top or achieve or maximize the use of girls’ talents. What Boys May Learn from Birthday Cards Expectations for success can be expressed in many ways, but in greeting cards it is clear that gender role expectations for boys include being actionoriented, strong, energetic, and highly able to accomplish almost anything they can imagine. From the language, which usually includes action words and positive expectations for success, to the pictures, which illustrated motion and movement, boys’ cards clearly communicate a cultural belief that boys are expected to perform as winners in many different roles.

146    B. E. POLNICK and G. POLNICK

Conclusions and Recommendations In our research, we found that the content and the classification of greeting cards reflect a clear set of differentiated cultural and gender role expectations for boys and girls. These expectations are communicated in subtle and not-so-subtle, maybe even subliminal messages from friends and family members over time, beginning at birth. Greeting cards are an important medium to study because they are a part of cultural rituals of celebrating events, and because they have the potential for being one of few written forms of communication today that are saved and passed down in families from generation to generation. The greeting cards that are purchased and offered today reflect society’s beliefs and values of the culture. It is, therefore, disconcerting that these images and messages of what girls can be and do is somewhat limited when compared to what these messages say boys can be and do. Children learn who they are from what and how others communicate with them. It is this process of others telling children what they think of them throughout their lives that provides the foundation for the view of self. Researchers (Brownmiller, 1984; Murphy, 1994; Wolfe, 1991) have contended that it is the accumulation of these gender signals that make stereotypes so difficult to overcome, on both individual and societal levels. It is our recommendation that family and friends of boys and girls first read and reflect on the messages of the greeting cards before purchasing cards for children. We recognize that there is no evidence that directly links gender-biased cards to diminished opportunities for girls and boys. However, it is our belief that by selecting and creating cards with images of girls and boys in a variety of roles, card givers can encourage girls and boys to move outside preconceived social boundaries that may limit their potential. For example, images on cards of girls working with blocks or cars and boys cooking or working in the garden may encourage children to develop different skills that complement their development (Polnick & Funk, 2006). Hopefully, by receiving greeting cards that project equity in a variety of roles and activities, children will recognize a pattern of acceptance to experience “freedom from limits imposed by self or society that would prohibit both males and females from pursuing the fields of knowledge and skills suited for them” (Walker & Foote, 2001, p. 101). We offer the following ideas for family members and friends who venture out to select the next birthday card for that special seven-year-old. Examine Personal Beliefs and Myths about Gender Roles In order to recognize the gender bias subtlety that is sometimes embedded in greeting cards, a person might examine his or her own beliefs and

A Hallmark Moment?    147

myths about gender roles. A person might ask: Do I believe that all women are nurturers and all men are tough? When I buy children’s toys, do I consider which are gender appropriate, such as princess costumes for little girls and a policeman costume for little boys, or do I find out first what a child needs or likes to do? Does it bother me to give a boy kitchen toys? For many, the answers to these questions may be yes. Considering the responses to such questions might assist in clarifying gender role biases or in understanding the influence society’s expectations have had upon the gender role expectations. Avoid the Use of Stereotyping Language Community and school leaders can avoid using stereotyping language when addressing parents and other community members by avoiding language that reflects stereotyping of jobs or roles. For example, inclusionary alternatives in their communications, such as Dear Families in place of Dear Mothers, may be used when requesting materials or help from home. Replacing gender-specific terms with the word child, such as substituting “An American boy’s infatuation with football” with “An American child’s infatuation with football” (American Psychological Association, 2001, p. 66), would accomplish non-stereotyped language. Select Gender-Responsive Reading Material Families, friends, and acquaintances can include a careful selection of reading materials in their homes and as gifts to children. Literature, for example, that represents women and men in a variety of roles—traditional and non-traditional—can reinforce the concept that children should not be bound to gender-specific roles or positions. Encouraging children to read books (1) written by both men and women, (2) about both men and women, and (3) portraying females and males participating in a variety of settings (home, work, play) can aid in breaking down stereotypes. Using classic literature, including fairy tales, as a focus for discussing gender roles and equity issues, also can promote gender responsiveness. Find the Perfect Card We recommend searching for and sending gender-neutral cards. Another alternative is to personalize a traditional card by adding comments of action, independence, and success to the traditional text, or alter traditional

148    B. E. POLNICK and G. POLNICK

cards with princess and action hero covers by inserting personal comments over the traditional message. Create Alternatives to Traditional Greeting Cards Send gender-neutral messages by creating your own greeting cards from bond or photo paper. Several electronic resources are available for creating your own messages, images, and format. Some of those that we found especially easy to use: HallmarkSoftware.com; www.bluemountain.com; www. dummies.com/how-to/content/create-greeting-cards-in-microsoft-word2003.html; office.microsoft.com; mycardmaker.com; and desktoppub.about. com/od/cards/ht/greetingcard.htm. Raise the Level of Awareness of Gender Bias Provide materials and professional development in the local community or organization to raise the level of awareness of the impact of gender bias on girls and boys in education and the workplace. There are numerous resources for achieving this result. For example, authors of the CD-ROM professional development materials “Seeing Gender: Tools for Change,” developed with a National Science Foundation, focus on several critical areas, such as gender bias, invisibility of girls/women as science students, stereotyping, and invisibility of women scientists as contributors (Seeing Gender Team, 2006). A landmark publication containing analyses of over 20 years of gender research, The Handbook for Achieving Gender Equity Through Education (Klein et al., 2007), contains a chapter on gender equity in early learning environments which includes both research and practical recommendations for making education activities and outcomes more gender equitable (Polnick et al., 2007). Summary In summary, we are hopeful that in the future, rather than finding cards on store shelves labeled for Granddad’s little charmer and Grandma’s big winner, cards will be labeled as Cards for Children. Messages of caring and joy will race alongside superheroes in action, and princess cards will sparkle with messages of strength, ability, and courage, characteristics most admired (and rewarded) in our society today—and needed for any princess or prince position!

A Hallmark Moment?    149

References Adams, G. J. (2007). The history of greeting cards: An overview. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from http://www.islandchristmasshop.com/artman/publish/ article_10.shtml American Greetings Company. (2007). History of giving greeting cards. Retrieved September 14, 2009, from http://www.americangreetings.com/products/greeting- cards.pd American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Birns, B. (1976). The emergence and socialization of sex differences in the earliest years. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 22, 229–254. Bridges, J. S. (1993). Pink or blue: Gender stereotypic perceptions of infants as conveyed by birth congratulations cards. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 193–205. Brownmiller, S. (1984). Femininity. New York: Linden Press. Cacioppo, J. T. & Andersen, B. L. (1981). Greeting cards as data on social process. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2(2), 115–119. Demby, J. (2007). New baby boy card verse. Chicago: P.S. Greetings. Fagot, B. I. (1978). The influence of sex of child on parental reactions to toddler children. Child Development, 49, 459–465. Gordon, A. M. & Browne, K. W. (2000). Beginnings and beyond (5th ed.). Albany, NY: Delmar. Greeting Card Association. (2007a). Paragraph 1. Retrieved February 12, 2009, from http://www.greetingcard.org/priorities.php Greeting Card Association. (2007b). Paragraph 1. Retrieved February 12, 2009, from http://www.greetingcard.org/about.php Hendrick, J. (1996). The whole child: Developmental education for the early years (6th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Intons-Peterson, M. J. & Reddel, M. (1984). What do people ask about a neonate? Developmental Psychology, 20, 358–359. Karraker, K. H., Vogel, D. A., & Lake, M. A. (1995). Parents’ gender-stereotyped perceptions of newborns: The eye of the beholder revisited. Sex Roles, 33, 687–701. Klein, S., Dwyer, C. A., Fox, L., Grayson, D., Kramarae, C., Pollard, D., Richardson, B. (Eds). (2007). The handbook on research on gender equity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Meister, M., & Japp, P. M. (Eds.). (2002). Enviropop: Studies in environmental rhetoric and popular culture. Westport, CT: Praeger. Retrieved May 28, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106867183 Murphy, B. O. (1994). Greeting cards and gender messages. Women and Language, 17(1). Retrieved from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a =o&d=5000298144 Polnick, B. & Funk, C. (2005). Early mathematics: Learning in the block center. In B. Irby & J. Koch (Eds.), Gender and schooling in the early years (pp. 99–112). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Polnick, B., Dwyer, C. A., Haynie, C. F., Froschl, M., Sprung, B., & Fromberg, D. (2007). Gender equity in early learning environments. In S. Klein et al.

150    B. E. POLNICK and G. POLNICK (Eds.), The Handbook on research on gender equity (pp. 609–630). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Puckett, M. B. & Black, J. K. (2005). The young child: Development from pre-birth through age eight (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rubin, J., Provenzano, R., & Luria, Z. (1974). The eye of the beholder: Parents’ views on sex of newborns. American Journal of Orthropsychiatry, 44, 512–519. Sandnabba, N. K., & Ahlberg, C. (1999). Parents’ attitudes and expectations about children’s cross-gender behavior. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 40(314), 249–263. Seeing Gender Team. (2006). Seeing gender: Tools for change. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City University. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from http://www.meac.org/ Resources/ed_services/SG_WEB/SeeingGender/ProjectInfo.html Serbin, L. (1988). Play activities and the development of visual-spatial skills. Equal Play, 1(4), 5. Shakin, M., Shakin, D., & Stemglanz, S. H. (1985). Infant clothing: Sex labeling for strangers. Sex Roles, 12, 955–964. Stradling, D. (2007). New baby girl card verse. Chicago: P.S. Greetings. Sweeney, J., & Bradbard, M. R. (1988). Mothers’ and fathers’ changing perceptions of their male and female infants over the course of pregnancy. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 149, 393–404. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families. (2005). Head start impact study: First year findings. Washington, DC: Author. Vogel, D. A., Lake, M. A., Evans, S., & Karraker, H. K. (1991). Children’s and adults’ sex-stereotyped perceptions of infants. Sex Roles, 24, 605–616. Walker, C. & Foote, M. (2001, March). Equity in excellence for all learners: An unobtrusive look at racism, classism, and the differently abled in residences for portfolio growth summaries. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Dallas, TX. West, E. (2004). Greeting cards: Individuality and authenticity in mass culture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Witt, S. D. (1997). Parental influence on children’s socialization to gender roles. Adolescence, 32(126), 253+. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000464950 Wolfe, N. (1991). The beauty myth. New York: William Morrow & Co., Inc. Yelland, N. & Grieshaber, S. (1998). Blurring the edges. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Gender in early childhood (pp. 1–11). London: Routledge.

Chapter 9

Child Abuse Traumatic Influences and Treatment Sandra Johnson

Our brains are sculpted by our early experiences. Maltreatment is a chisel that shapes a brain to contend with strife, but at the cost of deep, enduring wounds. Childhood abuse isn’t something you “get over.” It is an evil that we must acknowledge and confront if we aim to do anything about the unchecked cycle of violence in this country. —Martin Teicher, as cited in Stein & Kendall, 2004, p. 203

According to Stein and Kendall (2004), the impact of traumatic events is different from everyday stressors for a child. Trauma “produces feelings of terror and helplessness, which overwhelm normal psychological defenses” (p. 74). Just one traumatic event in a child’s life can overwhelm the stress response and cause alterations in the structure and chemistry of the brain. When a child experiences consistent traumatic abuse, known as “complex trauma,” these alterations in brain structure can cause cognitive deficits, psychopathology, problems with self-regulation, addiction disorders, and physical problems (Stein & Kendall, 2004). Although every child who has experienced one or more traumatic events as a result of child abuse will experience alterations in brain structures, the individual responses to traumatic events may “vary with the nature, duraGender and Early Learning Environments, pages 151–172 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

151

152    S. JOHNSON

tion and the pattern of traumatic stressor and the child’s constitutional characteristics (e.g., genetic predisposition, age, gender, history of previous stress exposure, presence of attenuating factors such as supportive caregivers” (Perry, 2000, p. 1). However, it is important to remember that “whatever the individual response . . . the extreme nature of the external threat is matched by an extreme and persisting internal activation of the neurophysiological systems mediating the stress response and their associated functions” (Perry & Pollarad, as cited in Perry & Azad, 1999, p. 2 ). In other words, the more intense and prolonged the traumatic events, including child abuse, the more likely there will be changes in the neural systems that bring about persisting emotional, behavioral, cognitive and physiological symptoms that are directly related to the traumatic event(s) (Perry, 2000). The alterations in brain structure brought about by traumatic events, including child abuse, can cause psychiatric diagnoses such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, attachment disorders, disorganized attachment disorder and reactive attachment disorder (RAD), and acting-out behaviors such as aggression and paranoid behaviors. Other areas of impairment include hyperactivity and hyperarousal; poor emotional self-regulation, including a sensitized arousal system; selfharming behaviors; cognitive deficits; lack of empathy for others; physical problems (cardiovascular, metabolic, immunological disorders); and addictive behaviors. Brain alterations due to trauma can lead to conduct disorder (CD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) in young children, antisocial personality disorder (APD), and juvenile delinquency in older children (van der Kolk, 2006). Brain alterations due to traumatic events, including child abuse, can cause violent acting-out behaviors due to lack of empathy or attachment toward others and deficits in self-regulation (Perry, 2001a). Recent studies have linked maltreatment with schizophrenia and psychosis (Read, Perry, Moskowitz, & Connolly, 2001). The purpose of this chapter is to explain the brain changes in children traumatized by maltreatment (including intrafamilial and extrafamilial abuse), the devastating results of these changes, and treatment options. I will first discuss the prevalence of maltreatment of children in the United States. I will then examine the two primary, but interactive, neurobiological defense mechanisms that are accessed during traumatizing events: the hyperarousal and the dissociative defense systems. Next, I will discuss the hallmark symptoms of traumatization that occur because of the persistent activation of these defense systems. To explain the impact of abusive caregivers on a child’s ability to form secure attachments and have empathy toward others, I will discuss the attachment disorders of disorganized attachment and RAD seen in traumatized children. Because the result of traumatization due to child abuse includes acting-out behaviors, I will discuss the behaviors of abused infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents and address

Child Abuse    153

appropriate psychopharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatments for working with abused children and adolescents. Prevalence of Child Abuse A conservative estimate of the prevalence of child abuse in the United States suggests that “8% of U.S children experience sexual abuse before age 18, while 17% experience physical abuse, and 18% experience physical neglect” (Flisher et al., 1997, Gorey & Lesle, 1997, as cited in Slade & Wissow, 2007, p. 604). Girls are somewhat more likely to be abused than boys (Mersch, 2009). Mersch noted that “according to statistics published in 1996, about 52% of victims of maltreatment were female and 48% were male” (p. 1). There is a consistent pattern of gender for abused and neglected children. Mersch further noted that “approximately 75% of sexual abuse is inflicted upon girls. Girls also are more likely to suffer from neglect. Boys are more likely to experience physical abuse” (p. 1). Sexual abuse can include many types of sexual behaviors that involve bodily contact such as fondling of genitals, intercourse, and sexual kissing. Sexually abusive behaviors not involving bodily contact include verbal pressure for sex, sexual exploitation such as pornography or prostitution, and genital exposure or “flashing” or harming a child or adolescent in other ways. “Boys are more likely to be sexually abused by nonfamily members and girls are more likely to be sexually abused by male family members” (Finkelhor, 1998, as cited in Wolfe, 1999, p. 14). Physical abuse can be defined as attempting or causing injury or physical pain. Physical abuse may result from beating, kicking, burning, punching, or harming a child in other ways. Neglect happens when the caregiver does not meet the child’s need for clothing, food, shelter, education, or medical treatment. Neglect also occurs when the caregiver exposes the child to an environment that is not safe. Neglect is the form of abuse most often reported to Child Protection (National Child Traumatic Stress Network, 2009b). According to Margolin and Gordis (as cited in Margolin & Vickerman, 2007), children’s exposure to domestic violence has been noted as the most common abusive event for children. According to the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (2009b), domestic violence or intimate partner violence includes threatened or actual sexual or physical violence or emotional abuse between adults living as intimate partners. A recent study by McDonald, Jouriles, Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano, and Green (as cited in Margolin & Vickerman, 2007), found that “each year, domestic violence occurs in the homes of approximately 30% of children living with two parents” (p. 613). According to Chemtob & Carlson (2004), approximately “10 million (Strauss, 1992) children in the United States live in households in which domestic violence

154    S. JOHNSON

is perpetrated” (p.  210). Community violence includes such acts as rapes, beatings, stabbings, robbery, and shootings. Children may witness community violence or they may be victims (National Child Traumatic Stress Network, 2009b). Studies on chronic community violence in a low-income and moderately violent neighborhood in Washington, DC found that 61% of the neighborhood children reported witnessing community violence, and 19% reported they had been victims (Richters & Martinez, as cited in Dulmus & Wodarski, 2000). A study by Bell and Jenkins (as cited in Dulmus &Wodarski, 2000) found that 26% of elementary school children in three inner-city Chicago schools had witnessed life-threatening community violence. Emotional abuse or psychological abuse is involved in all types of maltreatment (Department of Health, Home Office, and Department for Education and Employment, 1999). “Psychological maltreatment means a repeated pattern of caregiver behavior or extreme incident (s) that convey to children that they are worthless, flawed, unloved, unwanted, endangered, or only of value in meeting another’s needs” (American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, as cited in Glaser, 2002, p. 702). Child and adolescent physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence, community violence, and emotional abuse cause changes in the brain that create two primary neurobiological defense systems—hyperarousal and dissociation. Brain Changes According to Perry (2001b), when a child perceives threat, there are two primary but interactive neurobiological defense mechanisms that are accessed: the hyperarousal (fight or flight) defense system and the dissociative defense system (freeze, detach, compartmentalize, or “split off” the memory from awareness). The neural system regulating the hyperarousal system is the reticular activating system (RAS). This complex system includes activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis with the resulting release of cortisol. Cortisol appears to alter hippocampus structure and volume, which negatively impacts memory and learning. The brainstem catecholamine systems are aroused and play a critical role in regulating arousal, vigilance, affect, irritability, attention, and sleep states. The amygdala (which has a key role in emotional memory and emotional assessment of incoming stimuli) is also aroused. The amygdala responds to perceived threat by sending signals to the motor or behavioral system of the brain. When a child is exposed to chronic trauma, this system does not turn off when the event is over but keeps the child in survival mode or a state of hyperarousal, with a fear-ridden amygdala continually searching the environment for threat.

Child Abuse    155

The neural systems regulating the dissociative defense are the dopaminergic systems. These systems are involved in what could be termed the reward system and affect regulation of the brain. They are co-localized with endogenous opioids that are involved with altering perception of place, reality, and time. They appear to be major mediators of the dissociative behaviors. If a maltreated child uses a mainly hyperarousal response, the neurochemical system will be altered and the child will develop persistent hyperarousal-related symptoms and related disorders such as PTSD, attention deficit disorder (ADD), and CD (Perry, 2001b). These children will have continuing physiological hyperarousal along with hyperactivity. If a child responds to trauma by using a dissociative state, the homeostatsis of the systems that mediate the dissociate response will create a sensitized neurobiology, and the child will develop dissociative-related symptoms such as withdrawal, feelings of helplessness, dissociation (e.g., a child may appear “spaced out” with no affective response, or may robotically tell the caseworker what happened with no affective response, or exhibit no memory of a traumatic event), somatic (bodily) complaints related to the traumatic abuse but not consciously or cognitively remembered by the child, and related psychiatric disorders such as anxiety disorders, major depression disorder (MDD), and dissociative disorders. Dissociative disorders can be depersonalization disorder (DPD) and dissociative amnesia. Depersonalization can be transient and is characterized as feelings of detachment from oneself, as if one is an observer of one’s mental processes (e.g., a sexually abused child may talk about “being on the ceiling” and watching his or her body being traumatized). Dissociative amnesia is the inability to recall important events related to the trauma (APA, 2000). According to Perry (2005), there are gender differences in these responses to violence: Females are more likely to dissociate and males are more likely to display a classic “flight or fight” response. As a result more males will develop the aggressive, impulsive, reactive and hyperactive symptom presentation (more externalizing), while females will be more anxious, dissociative and dysphoric (more internalizing). (p. 10)

Both defense systems of hyperarousal and dissociation determine the hallmark systems of traumatization: flashbacks triggered by events and circumstances around the abuse, and poor self-regulation. Hallmark Symptoms of Traumatization There are three hallmarks of traumatization that are a result of the hyperarousal and dissociative defenses: (1) memory reenactment as flashbacks,

156    S. JOHNSON

(2) event, circumstance, or object triggers that in someway remind the traumatized child’s primitive brain of the abuse, and (3) poor self-regulation. Memory Reenactment as Flashbacks A traumatized child’s brain lays down a trauma memory in a different way than it does a non-threatening experience. The memory cannot be integrated into the running narrative called the “self” as it is beyond the normal range of experiences. Therefore, it is not easily accessed cognitively, but its affect or emotional quality is stored in the primitive brain or the limbic system. Because the memory is not integrated, the memory remains active but “relegated to separate aspects of consciousness” (Luxenberg, Spinazzola, & van der Kolk, 2001, p. 377). As sensory experiences come into the brain, these memories may be triggered by what the aroused and paranoid amygdala senses as threatening. Any external stimulus that is in some way similar to the experience of the trauma (whether it is really threatening or not) is considered a trigger. Many times, the child will have no idea that acting-out emotions or behaviors are connected to the abuse. For example, a child in foster care who has a history of being abused in her bed, upon being told to go to bed at night by her kind foster mother, may elicit an emotional response of acting out defiant behaviors. A child in school may see her teacher wear a certain color that was similar to the color her abuser wore, and the child may start acting out with rage or exhibit dissociative behaviors of withdrawing and “spacing out.” This aroused and paranoid response by the amygdala takes place without mediation from the higher regions of the brain, as the hypocampus (a link to the higher functioning regions of the brain) has been compromised by the neurochemicals of the brain’s response to threat. According to Perry (2001b), “cut adrift from internal regulating capabilities of the cortex, the brainstem acts reflexively, impulsively, and aggressively to any perceived threat. Eye contact for too long becomes a life-threatening signal. Wearing the wrong colors—a hand gesture” (p. 14). Triggers Triggers can arouse traumatic memories and result in what is termed “flashback.” Flashbacks (re-experiencing of the traumatic event) can occur in different ways because of the “splitting off” of the traumatic experiences when laid down in memory. A visual flashback includes the visual and audio elements of the trauma. Somatic memories can be experienced as an

Child Abuse    157

“inexplicable physical sensation that cannot be verbally explained” (Perry, 2001b, p. 377). When a child is in an affective flashback, the affect (or the emotions of the trauma) is felt (terror/rage/helplessness) and may be acted out, for example, through screaming, withdrawing, or “numbing out.” Many times the affective flashback or somatic memory of the body happens without conscious recall of the traumatic event. This is important to understand, as a child may act out affectively upon being triggered, and caregivers, teachers, and child care workers observing the child may perceive the acting out as happening without any provocation and cannot understand why the child is acting out. It is also important to note that re-experiencing the trauma in young children may happen through the re-enactment of the event through repetitive play (such as repeatedly stabbing a monster), through stories (symbolic narrative), games, and drawing. An older traumatized sexually abused child may repeat the abuse in some way with another child, thus re-enacting the abuse (Perry & Szalavitz, 2006). Poor Self-Regulation Because the sensitized amygdala is unregulated by the higher regions of the brain, poor self-regulation is one of the “hallmarks” of the traumatized child. Affect regulation begins with the “identification of internal emotional experiences, which requires the ability to differentiate among states of arousal, interpret these states, and apply appropriate labels (e.g., “happy,” “frightened”). Following the identification of an emotional state, a child must be able to express emotions safely and to modulate or regulate internal experience. . . . Children with complex trauma histories evidence both behavioral and emotional expression of pathology due to impaired capacity to self-regulate and self-soothe. (Cook et al., 2005, p. 390)

Consequences of poor self-regulation include extreme reactions to neutral or mild stimuli. The child, when becoming overwhelmed, has difficulty calming himself or herself and may exhibit self-destructive behaviors (such as head banging in young children to self-mutilation in older children). An older child or adolescent may develop an eating disorder, substance abuse disorder, or act out compulsively by heightened risk taking or sexual compulsivity (Luxenberg et al., 2001). Children and adolescents who are maltreated by their caregivers exhibit these hallmarks of traumatization along with disorders of attachment.

158    S. JOHNSON

Attachment Attachment theory is based on the premise that “beginning in infancy, children form highly affective relationships—or attachments—with their primary caregivers that are based on the infant’s need for protection, comfort, and nurturance” (Zilberstein, 2006, p. 55). Stein and Kendall (2004) stated that “secure attachment promotes neuronal connections, helping to strength and integrate key brain structures. Schore (as cited in Stein and Kendall), posited “that the development of the prefrontal cortex— the center for reasoning, problem solving, motivation, and response flexibility—is vitally dependent on reciprocal interactions with an emotionally attuned caregiver” (p. 8). When an infant is in distress, and the sensitive caregiver(s) maintains a non-aroused state and soothes the infant, the caregiver actually creates a neurobiological foundational state within the infant that will later enable the child to cope with stress and to self-regulate (Stein & Kendall, 2004). In this early relationship with the caregiver, the infant creates internal working models or templates that will influence relationships throughout the lifespan. Within this relationship the infant also begins to form his or her own perception of himself or herself (Pietromonaco & Barrett, 2000). However, in early childhood, if an infant or toddler is persistently maltreated by the caregiver(s), there are two types of severe attachment disorders that can manifest: disorganized attachment disorder and RAD. Symptoms of disorganized attachment happen when the caregiver is frightening or fearful to the infant. According to Bernier and Meins (2008), infants with disorganized attachment disorder fail to display a consistently coherent pattern of behavioral responses. The behaviors of disorganized attached infants interacting with their caregivers may “appear contradictory, odd, overtly conflicted, or fearful” (p. 970). Abusive behaviors by the caregiver result in an “unsolvable paradox for the infant/toddler: the person who can alleviate their fear and alarm is the very source of these negative emotions. The infant can neither flee from nor approach the attachment figure” (Zilberstein, 2006, p. 56). Another predictor of disorganized attachment disorder is making “affective errors” on the part of the caregiver. For example, these errors happen when the caregiver does not comfort the child when the child is distressed, turns away from the child after the caregiver asks the child to approach, or the tendency of the caregiver to withdraw from interacting (e.g., the caregiver holding the child away from her body or, after a separation, not interacting with the child) (Lyons-Ruth, Bronfman, & Parsons, as cited in Zilberstein, 2006). Infants or toddlers whose behaviors are disorganized may act in a dissociative manner, as described by Liotti (2004):

Child Abuse    159 In the middle of an approach behavior to the parent they may suddenly become immobile, unresponsive to the parent’s call, with a blank look, and persist it this state for 30 seconds or more. They may also show contradiction in movement patterns as if they are pursuing two incompatible goals simultaneously or in quick succession. An aggressive gesture, executed with an unusual facial expression, without warning and in the middle of a display of affectionate behavior toward the caregiver, is another possible indicator of dissociation in disorganized infants. (p. 5)

Another type of attachment disorder seen in maltreated children is called RAD. It is a result of “grossly pathogenic care” (APA, 2000 ). Perry and Szalavitz (2006) stated that RAD “is a diagnosis frequently given to children who have suffered severe early neglect and/or trauma” (p. 204). He further states, “The regions of their brains that help them form relationships and decode social cues do not develop properly, and they grow up with faulty relational neurobiology, including an inability to derive pleasure from healthy human interactions” (p. 205). Many infants or toddlers coming from institutions will exhibit RAD. There are two subtypes of RAD: DSM-IV defines two subtypes of RAD—inhibited and disinhibited—both characterized by inappropriate social behavior across situations. In the inhibited types, a lack of social approach exists: Children seem emotionally withdrawn and terrified of others. In the disinhibited type, shallow, superficial, yet overly assertive social behaviors are exhibited in the form of clinging and/or indiscriminate friendliness. (Ziberstein, 2006, p. 56)

As stated previously, disrupted attachment behaviors characterize attachment patterns throughout the lifespan. According to Lyons-Ruth (1996), disorganized attachment disorder is a predictor of aggression in school-age children. RAD children are at a high risk for aggressive behaviors, antisocial behaviors, and juvenile delinquency. Perry (2001a) called unattached children and adolescents “emotionally retarded” because of their lack of ability to exhibit empathy and develop attachments. Disrupted attachment of infants’ and toddlers’ disrupted attachment is exhibited by their own set of behaviors due to maltreatment. These behaviors are particular to this population. Behaviors of Traumatized Infants and Toddlers According to Perry (n.d.), infants and toddlers remember maltreatment even when it happens at a non-verbal age. Because all incoming sensory experiences are compared against previously experienced and stored memories, the experiences of early childhood create the foundational organiza-

160    S. JOHNSON

tion of neural systems that will be used for a lifetime. For example, our pattern of relationships (attachment templates) is formed in early childhood, especially in the first year of life. Therefore, early childhood is the time that the brain is most vulnerable to abuse. When maltreatment (emotional, physical, sexual abuse, witnessing violence and neglect) happens in early childhood, the memories are noncognitive and preverbal. The trauma memories laid down are physiological, motor-vestibular, and emotional memories. These memories are not accessible cognitively, and they will influence the infant and toddler throughout the lifespan, creating difficulties in the areas of attachment, intimacy, and, of course, self-regulation. Research done by Jaffe, Wolfe, and Wilson (1990, as cited in Iwaniec, 1997), found that infants who had witnessed domestic violence were characterized by poor sleeping habits and poor health, excessive screaming, and attachment disorders. The traumatic memories are laid down as physiological state memories, motor memories, and emotional memories. Therefore, as the child grows older, he or she may be completely unaware that certain fears, somatic sensations, anxious and depressed states, and abnormal attachment patterns are rooted in the maltreatment of early childhood. Toddlers exposed to domestic violence were found to have poor health and low self-esteem, were acutely shy, and had relationship difficulties in daycare as they acted out by being disobedient and augmentative, and by hitting and biting (Wolfe & Wilson, as cited in Iwaniec, 1997). Behaviors in early childhood of maltreated children may include: 1. head banging, rocking, scratching or biting themselves as a means of self-soothing (Perry, 2001a) 2. difficulty falling asleep, repeated night walking, nightmares 3. increased irritability, outbursts of anger or extreme fussiness, or temper tantrums 4. staring, freezing, numbing responses or hypervigilance, exaggerated startle response 5. play that is a re-enactment of the abuse 6. recurrent episodes of flashbacks (dissociative memories) such as somatic complaints, behaviorally or emotionally acting out the abuse without knowledge that the acting out is in relationship to the abusive memories; for example, seeing a man wearing a baseball hat that is similar to the same baseball hat worn by the abuser and starting to act out aggressively while screaming 7. recurrent depression or anxiety 8. failure to thrive 9. (a) emotionally withdrawn or inhibited pattern of attachment: rarely or minimally seeks comfort in distress or responds minimally to comfort offered to alleviate distress; limited positive affect and excessive

Child Abuse    161

levels of irritability, sadness, or fear; (b) indiscriminate or disinhibited pattern of attachment: overly familiar behavior with unfamiliar adults 10. developmental delays due to maltreatment or neglect (Zero to Three, 2005). Children and adolescents with disrupted attachment also exhibit a particular set of behaviors. These behaviors will be examined in the next section. Behaviors of Traumatized Children/Adolescents According to Cook, Blaustein, Spinazzola, and van der Kolk (2003), there are seven primary domains of impairment in traumatized children and adolescents. These domains include: (1) attachment, (2) biology, (3) affect regulation, (4) dissociation, (5) behavioral regulation, (6) cognition, and (7) self-concept. Attachment Attachment disrupted children and adolescents form survival-based relationships in which they are coercive and aggressive (physically or verbally) or they form relationships in which they are the victim. These patterns are formed from relational patterns of abuse with the childhood caregiver (George & Solomon, as cited in Cook et al., 2003). The disorganized disordered child or adolescent has difficulty reacting to stressful events in a coherent fashion. When stressed, the child or adolescent becomes disorganized in his or her thinking. According to Cook and colleagues (2003): Disorganized attachment has been hypothesized to interfere with the development of neural connections in critical brain areas (e.g., the left and right hemispheres of the orbital prefrontal cortex and their connective pathways; Schore, 2001). This attachment style may result in impairment in affect regulation, stress management, empathy and prosocial concern for others, and the use of language to solve relational problems. (p. 9)

Perry and Szalzvitz (2006) indicated that the RAD child or adolescent has a lack of empathy, is unable to connect with others, and has manipulative and antisocial behaviors. Perry further stated that RAD children may have indiscriminate affectionate behaviors; these behaviors are not connecting behaviors, but rather a way to “neutralize potentially threatening adults,

162    S. JOHNSON

but they don’t seem to engage in them as a way to form lasting, emotional ties” (p. 205). Biology According to Cook and colleagues (2003), in middle childhood and adolescence, there is a burst of brain development in the executive function of the brain, which is associated with developing conscious self-awareness, developing meaningful social relationships, developing an awareness of another’s perspective, and the development of decision strategies. This happens because of the mylination, or the growth of protective sheaths around nerve cells during this development period (Benes, Turtle, & Kahn, as cited in Cook et al., 2003). However, prior deficits in self-regulatory abilities or traumatic stressors during this developmental period can inhibit the functioning of the executive brain. Disruptions in self-regulation promote eating disorders, addictive disorders, self-harming behaviors, and high-risk behaviors as an attempt to regulate the emotions of overwhelming events (Cook et al., 2003). The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study, which was conducted from 1995 to 1997 by the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program in San Diego, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Emory University in Atlanta, and the University of Arizona Health Sciences Center in Tucson, suggests that adverse childhood experiences of neglect and exposure to traumatic stressors impact physical and emotional heath. Childhood abuse leads to the development of chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer, chronic lung and liver disease, liver disease, alcoholism and alcohol abuse, depression, illicit drug use, sexually transmitted diseases, smoking, suicide attempts, and obesity. Affect Regulation Maltreated children are not in touch with their inner affective states. They cannot name or interpret these states and they cannot self-modulate these states. As a result they can be “emotionally labile, demonstrating extreme responses to minor stressors, with rapid escalation and difficulty selfsoothing” (Cook et al., 2003, p. 12). Dissociation Dissociation is considered to be a key element of complex trauma in children. When the traumatized child or adolescent does not remember part

Child Abuse    163

of or all of the traumatic event(s), the child or adolescent is said to have dissociative amnesia, which is part of the dissociative spectrum of symptoms. For example, a child being interviewed by a Child Protective Services worker about certain documented traumatic events may state that he or she does not remember the event even though the event happened that day. A traumatized child may have an acting out moment (aggression) and not remember the acting out moment. The event would have been triggered by a situation resembling or in some way familiar to the original trauma (Etzel, 2004). In these cases, the traumatic dissociative memory was activated and acted out, but the child was amnesic to the memory and, therefore, amnesic to the acting out aggression associated with the memory. According to Silberg (1998), “Traumatized children typically react to a myriad of seemingly neutral or insignificant stimuli with dramatic alterations in mood and behavior states” (p. 318). Furthermore, Severely traumatized children habitually dissociate at school and are distinguished by their perplexing extremes of behavioral responses, often many times in a single day. Many observant teachers have already identified patters such as difficulty with transitions, avoidance of restrooms, intolerance of competitive sports, refusal to do certain school activities. (Silberg, pp. 321–322)

Behavioral Regulation A way of understanding the acting out behaviors of traumatized children and adolescents is by recognizing them as the re-enactment of the behaviors of the abuse. Anda (2002) noted that “children may re-enact behavioral aspects of their trauma (e.g., aggression, self-injurious behaviors, sexualized behaviors, controlling relationship dynamics) as an automatic behavioral reactions to reminders or as attempts to gain mastery or control over the experiences” (Anda, 2002, as cited in Cook et al., 2003, p. 14). Cognition Children and adolescents who have been traumatized can have deficits in the area of cognitive organization. A child in a classroom who is in a state of hyperarousal or dissociation has difficulty learning. The capacity to process new incoming verbal cognitive information depends upon having portions of the frontal and related cortical areas activated. The brain of a traumatized child has different areas of the brain controlling functioning: the survival or primitive brain. A fearful child in a hyperaroused anxious

164    S. JOHNSON

state cannot retrieve information as a calm non-traumatized child can. The child may be labeled learning disabled (Perry, 1999). There is a deficit in traumatized children and adolescents in identifying and describing emotional experiences. This is called alexithymia (APA, 2000). According to Slade and Wissow (2007), there are negative correlations between child maltreatment and academic performance: On average, children who are maltreated receive lower ratings of performance from their school teachers, score lower on cognitive assessments and standardized test of academic achievement, obtain lower grades, and get suspended from school and retained in grade more frequently (Eckenrode, Laird, & Dors, 1993; Erickson, Egeland, & Pianta, 1989; Kendall-Tackett & Eckenrode, 1996; Kurtz, Gaudin, Wodarski, & Howing, 1993; Rowe & Eckenrode, 1999; Shonk & Cicchetti, 2001). (Slade & Wissow, 2007, p. 605)

Self-Concept Traumatized children develop negative views of themselves in early childhood. Repeated episodes of maltreatment and rejection by caregivers lead to a sense of “self” as helpless, deficient, ineffective, and unlovable. These children expect others to reject them and blame themselves for the traumatizing experiences (Schneider-Rosen & Cicchetti, 1991, as cited in Cook et al., 2003). Girls and boys seem to process and express blame in different ways: “Maltreated girls tend to show more internalizing signs of distress, such as shame” (Alessandri & Lewis, 1996, as cited in Wolfe, 1999, p. 47); boys tend to demonstrate heightened levels of verbal and physical aggression (Scerbo & Kolko, 1995, as cited in Wolfe, 1999). Infants and toddlers and children and adolescents can be treated for the effects of maltreatment. The next section will briefly examine psychotherapeutic treatment and psychopharmacological treatment of the pathologies caused by child maltreatment. Treatment Because “trauma fragments brain functioning by uncoupling the emotional and cognitive systems from one another, lessening the capacity of the right and left hemisphere to work together, and interfering it the development of brain areas” (Stein & Kendall, 2004, p. 134), treating traumatized children involves reorganization of brain functioning. This reorganization entails strengthening the working relationship among the different parts

Child Abuse    165

of the brain and promoting healthy brain development. To facilitate this reorganization, Stein and Kendall posited three areas for treatment: (1) psychobiological, (2) psychological treatment, and (3) working with the caregivers of infants and toddlers. Psychobiological treatment (psychopharmacological treatment) involves medications to dampen the reactivity of the limbic system and to assist the child in the modulation of emotion (Stein & Kendall, 2004). According to Perry and Ishnella (1999), medications for traumatized children are aimed at treating the core trauma symptoms of physiological arousal such as sleep problems (nightmares, difficulty falling asleep), hyperactivity (which causes behavioral impulsivity), and anxiety. Perry and Szalavitz (2006) stated that clonidine (used with combat veterans exhibiting symptoms of PTSD) helps to reduce the overactivity in the stress system of traumatized children. Certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are effective for traumatized children and adolescents with symptoms of depression anxiety and panic symptoms (Finn, 2004; Silva, Cloitre, Davis, et al., as cited in Cook et al., 2003). Donnelly (2003) cited the use of antipsychotics such as risperidone (resperdal), olanzpine (zyprexa), and quetiapine (seroquel) for children and adolescents who are exhibiting symptoms of paranoia, selfdestructive behavior, explosive symptoms, and intense flashbacks because of their apparent lower risk of adverse effects. Lamotrigine (Lamictal), an anticonvulsant drug, “may be a useful intervention for debilitating avoidant/ numbing, hyperarousal, and sleep dysregulation in children with PTSD, or where overwhelming anger and aggressiveness/explosiveness predominate” (Donnelly, 2003, p. 167). Very young children who are acting out aggressively can also be treated with medications. Reisperidone, known as resperdal (an antipsychotic), has been used to treat aggression (Cesena,as cited in Staller, 2006). In a study of preschoolers, clonidine was found to ameliorate symptom effects in preschoolers with PTSD (Harmon & Riggs, as cited in Staller, 2006). Related to psychological treatment, Perry and Malchiodi (2008) indicated that, trauma therapeutic interventions should involve in some way an externalization of trauma memories and experiences: Externalization of trauma memories and experiences is considered central to the process of relief and recovery. All therapies, by their very nature and purpose, encourage individuals to engage in externalizing troubling thoughts, feelings, and experiences. Creative interventions encourage externalization through one or more modalities as a central part of therapy and trauma intervention. (p. 14)

Traumatic memories, as previously stated, are laid down differently than normal memories. Cognition of the memories (explicit memories) is not always accessible. However, the implicit memories (the sensory and emotional

166    S. JOHNSON

memories that are related to the body’s learned memories) are stored and accessible. Because the cognitive piece is missing, the victim cannot always put these memories into words. Also, for a younger child, because of developmental reasons, expressing traumatic memories may not be possible: Because trauma is stored as somatic sensations and images, it may not be readily available for communication through language. Perhaps this inability to verbalize trauma relates to the human survival response; when an experience is extremely painful to recall, the brain protects the individual by literally making it impossible to talk about it. (Perry & Malchiodi, 2008, p. 10)

Creative interventions or expressive therapies are a way for trauma survivors to symbolically externalize their ideas, thoughts, feelings, and dissociated memories. According to Steele (2007, as cited in Perry, 2008), “When memory cannot be expressed linguistically, it remains at a symbolic level, which there are no words to describe. In brief, to retrieve that memory so that it can become conscious, it must be externalized in its symbolic form” (Steele, 2007, as cited in Perry, 2008, p. 16). Creative interventions may involve art, music, play, movement, sand tray, and poetry or bibliotherapy. Most therapists who use the expressive therapies integrate their creative interventions with other therapies such as cognitive behavioral and psychodynamic therapies (Perry, 2008). For example, Stein and Kendall (2004) suggested a three-stage approach for treating traumatized children and adolescents that involves expressive therapies, cognitive-behavioral therapy, psychodynamic, psychoeducational approaches, social skills training, and remedial interventions. Remedial experiences are new experiences that foster attachment, self-efficacy, and self-esteem. These new experiences actually help to “change the pattern of connections between nerve cells, networks, and systems” (Ratey, 2001, as cited in Stein & Kendall, p. 138). The three stages are: safety and stabilization, symptom reduction and memory work, and developmental skills. The following is a simplified outline of treatment: 1. Stage one—safety and stabilization—involves making the child safe from perpetrating adults and stopping self-destructive behaviors or violent behaviors. This could include such interventions as cognitive behavioral techniques of self-talk and discussing other ways of coping. Psychoeducation can empower and absolve the child of blame as the child learns that his or her responses to the trauma are understandable responses to overwhelming maltreatment. 2. Stage two—symptom reduction and memory work—focuses on reducing arousal and regulating emotion, which first involves working on ways to reduce affect. Reducing affect involves the cognitive behavioral techniques of progressive relaxation. It can also involve

Child Abuse    167

self-soothing activities such as water and sand play, music, and learning how to receive comfort from others. Tolerating affect entails learning how to identify and label emotions, along with integrating disavowed emotions, understanding triggers, and accepting ambivalence. When the child is able to cope with affect, the actual memory work and integrating memories is the next step. Expressive therapies can be utilized to process memories. As cognitive distortions of shame emerge through the memory work (such as “I am bad” and “I caused the abuse”), cognitive restructuring can be used. For the child to master the abuse, other techniques can be used, such as healing imagery. 3. Stage three—developmental skills—involves teaching problem-solving skills, social skills training, and nurturing self-awareness techniques. As an adjunct to therapy, movement techniques can help the child reconnect to his or her body (Stein & Kendall, 2004) In relation to working with the caregivers of infants and toddlers, therapeutic interventions in infant–parent psychotherapy aim at “protecting infant–toddler mental health by aligning the parents perceptions and resulting caregiving behaviors more closely with the baby’s developmental and individual needs within the cultural, socioeconomic, and interpersonal context of the family” (Fraiberg, 1980, as cited in Lieberman, Silverman, & Pawl, 2005, p. 472). In this type of therapy, the therapist works with the caregiver to understand how the caregiver’s “current and past experiences are shaping perceptions, feelings, and behaviors toward the infant” (Fraiberg, 1980, as cited in Lieberman et al., 2005, p. 472). The parent, after attaining self-awareness (under the guidance of the therapist) is able to self-soothe the infant, repair the attachment disruptions, and provide the attachment experiences necessary to “improve the parent–child relationship and the child’s socio-emotional functioning” (p. 483). The evaluation of the therapy is determined in terms of the improvement of the baby’s “social-emotional well-being as the result of treatment” (Lieberman et al., 2005, p. 473). In essence, this type of therapy repairs the attachment disruption and allows the brain of the infant or toddler to move toward healthy development. A program that can be used for adoptive parents, foster parents, and child protective workers to promote secure attachment in insecurely attached, traumatized children and adolescents was created by the Trauma Center at the Justice Resources Institute by Kinniburg and Blaustein (2005). This program has three therapeutic components with interventions in the areas of attachment, self-regulation, and competency. Attachment areas include assisting caregivers with their own management of affect, helping depersonalize children’s trauma responses, assisting caregivers in building attunement with the child, assisting caregivers in

168    S. JOHNSON

understanding behaviors of their traumatized child, behavior management strategies, consistency in responses, and building routines and rituals. Selfregulation includes affect identification in terms of understanding triggers, affect modulation (down-regulation for hyperaroused and up-regulation for a numbed-out or constricted state), and affect expression by helping the child to identify feelings and emotional self-expression. Competency includes building the executive function of the brain (problem solving skills), self-development (building a cohesive self), building identity, and developmental tasks. These interventions are geared toward the neurobiological symptoms of traumatization. For example, because the child and adolescent react to triggers associated with the abuse, the caregiver must be aware of the link between the child’s trauma triggers and acting out behaviors. Traumatized children frequently communicate emotions and internal experiences via behavior rather than words. The caregiver needs to interpret behaviors, assist the child in identifying and verbalizing emotion, and help the child to cope with emotions. The caregiver needs to be able to set limits that are non-triggering and give the child choices to avoid power struggles. The caregiver needs to understand how to build attunement with the child to encourage attachment. Conclusion In this chapter, I discussed gender differences in the types of child abuse and the defenses systems children use. The discussion also centered around brain changes that result in mental health disorders and maladaptive behaviors and therapeutic treatment models for abused infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents. I also examined the deficits that result from child abuse such as cognitive deficits, problems with self-regulation, and lack of empathy. According to Stein and Kendall (2004), “Child maltreatment is the single most costly public health problem in the United States today. It is a major contributor to scourges ranging from alcohol, tobacco, and drug abuse, to mental illness, AIDS, and violent crime” (p. ix). Chronicity is the key to the degree of maladaptive behaviors and psychopathology associated with maltreated infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents. The longer an infant, toddler, child, or adolescent is maltreated, the more psychopathological acting-out behaviors and cognitive deficits will be evident. It stands to reason that the sooner society can identify, intervene, and provide therapeutic measures for maltreated infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents, the better the outcome. Perry (2002) stated that in the past 15 years “we have worked with more than 1000 children neglected in some fashion. We have recorded increases in IQ of over 40 points

Child Abuse    169

in more than 60 children following removal from neglectful environments and placed in consistent, predictable, nurturing, safe and enriching placements” (Perry, 2002, p. 91). Other researchers have found similar results. Money and Annecillo (1976, as cited in Perry, 2002) reported remarkable increases in IQ and emotional and behavioral functioning when removing “failure to thrive” children from their abusive homes. The research demonstrates that there is hope. Timely interventions can help maltreated children rebuild their lives (Stein & Kendall, 2004). Interventions for schools are being offered throughout the United States. The National Traumatic Stress Network (2009a), in addition to offering materials to assist educators and administrators in recognizing, accommodating, and responding to traumatized children in the classroom, lists initiatives across the nation that provide information and curricula for establishing schools sensitive to traumatized children. For example, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUAD) was given a grant by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to establish the Los Angeles Unified School District Adaptation Center for Schools and Communities. That project is a national leader in developing implementing, evaluating, and disseminating trauma-informed services for schools. A schools-based program that has proven effective for reducing symptoms of traumatization in children is the Trauma Center Community Services Program in Massachusetts. This program has been extensively implemented in the United States as well as abroad. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2011) described the significance of their program: The significance of trauma is that educators may not be aware that a student is learning or responding under a trauma response. Behaviors, learning patterns or social skills may be misinterpreted or mislabeled. Traumatized children are vulnerable; teachers are the critical link to intervention with sensitivity and awareness. Best practices create an environment where students can learn in a safe and positive environment. Trauma sensitive practice is a must for every educator’s toolkit. Trauma has profound effects on a child’s ability to participate and process the regular school day. Educators have an opportunity to intervene and advocate on behalf of their students with trauma sensitive practice and awareness. (p. 1)

In summation, maltreated children who have been exposed to one or more events of sexual, physical, or emotional abuse; neglect; community violence; and domestic violence need community interventions to reduce the symptoms of traumatization and to achieve their learning potential. These community interventions can be in the form of: mental health and counseling agencies, family interventions, psychopharmacological interventions, and interventions in their school environment.

170    S. JOHNSON

References American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-1V-TR) (4th ed., revised). Washington, DC: Author. Anda, R. (2002, Nov.). The wide ranging health effects of adverse childhood experiences. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. Baltimore, MD. Bernier, A., & Meins, E. (2008). A threshold approach to understanding the origins of attachment disorganization. Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 969–982. Chemtob, C. & Carlson, J., G. (2004). Psychological effects of domestic violence on children and their mothers. International Journal of Stress Management, 11(3), 209–226. Cook, A., Blaustein, M., Spinazzola, J., & van der Kolk, B. (Eds.). (2003). Complex trauma in children and adolescents. National Child Traumatic Stress Network. Retrieved July 28, 2008, from www.NCTSNet.org. Cook, A., Spinazzola, J. Ford, J., Lanktree, C., Blaustein, M., Cloitre, M., et al. (2005). Complex trauma in children and adolescents. Psychiatric Annals, 35(5), 390– 398. Department of Health, Home Office, Department for Education and Employment. (1999). Working together to safeguard children: A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Retrieved August, 2008, from http://www.dhgov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/PublicationsPolicyand Guidance/DH_4007781. Donnelly, C.L. (2003). Pharmacologic treatment approaches for children and adolescents with posttraumatic stress disorder. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12(2), 251–269. Dulmus, C. N. & Wodarski, J. S. (April, 2000). Trauma-related symptomalogy among children of parents victimized by urban community violence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70(2), 272–277. Etzel, C., (2004). Evaluation of dissociation throughout the lifespan. Psychotherapy:. Finkelhor, D. (1994). Child sexual abuse. New York: The Free Press. Flisher, A. J., Kramer, R. A., Hoven, C. W., Greenwald, S., Alergria, M., Bird, H. R., et al. (1997). Psychosocial characteristics of physically abused children and adolescents, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(1), 123–131. Glaser, D. (2002). Emotional abuse and neglect (psychological maltreatment): A conceptual framework. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 697–714. Gorey, K. M., & Leslie, D. R. (1997). The prevalence of sexual abuse: Integrative review adjustment for potential response and measurement biases. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21, 391–398. Iwaniec, D. (1997). An overview of emotional maltreatment and failure-to-thrive. Child Abuse Review, 6, 370–388. Kinniburg, K. & Blaustein, M. (2005). Attachment, self-regulation, & competency. Brookline, MA: The Trauma Center. Lieberman, A., Silberman, R., & Pawl, J. H. (2005). Infant–parent psychotherapy: core concepts and current approaches. In C. H. Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (pp. 472–484). New York: Guilford Press.

Child Abuse    171 Liotti, G. (2004). Trauma, dissociation, and disorganized attachment: Three strands of a single braid. Retrieved Jan. 22, 2009 from http://www.empty-memories.nl/science/Lotti_Trauma_Attachment/pdf. Luxenberg, T., Spinazzola, J., & van der Kolk, B. A. (2001). Complex trauma and disorders of extreme stress (DESNOS): Lessons 25 & 26. Directions in Psychiatry, 21, 374–415. Lyons-Ruth, K. (1996). Attachment relationships among children with aggressive behavior problems: The role of disorganized early attachment patterns. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(1), 64–73. Margolin, G., & Vickerman, K. (2007). Posttraumatic stress and adolescents exposed to family violence: 1. Overview and issues. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(6), 613–619. Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education. (2011). Traumasensitive schools. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/tss/schools. Mersch, J. (2009). Child abuse. Retrieved Jan. 21, 2009, from http://www.medicinenet.com/child_abuse/page2.htm. National Child Traumatic Stress Network. (2009a). Resources. Retrieved January 20, 2009, from http://www.nctsnet.org/nac.do?pid=aud_schl_resources. National Child Traumatic Stress Network. (2009b). Trauma types. Retrieved January 19, 2009, from http://www.netsnet.org/nects/do?pid=typ_main. Perry, B. (n.d.). Sexual abuse of infants: A five part question focusing on sexual abuse during infancy. Pre-final draft for: Trauma, Violence and Abuse: A Review Journal. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from www.ChildTrauma.org. http://www. childtrauma.org/print/print/asp?REF=/CTAMATERIALS/adrenegic.asp. Perry, B. (1999). Memories of fear: How the brain stores and retrieves physiologic states, feelings, behaviors and thoughts from traumatic events. In J. Goodwin & R. Attias, (Eds.), Splintered reflections: Images of the body in trauma. New York: Basic Books. Perry, B. (2001a). Bonding and attachment in maltreated children: Consequences of emotional neglect in childhood. Child Trauma Academy, 1(4), 1–10. Perry, B. (2001b). The neurodevelopmental impact of violence in childhood. In D. Schetky & E. Benedik (Eds.), Textbook of child and adolescent forensic psychiatry (pp. 221–238). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Perry, B. (2002). Childhood expression of genetic potential: What childhood neglect tells us about nature and nurture. Brain and Mind, 3, 79–100. Published in the Netherlands. Perry, B. (2005). Violence and childhood: How persisting fear can alter the developing child’s brain. Retrieved Jan. 21, 2009, from http://www.terrylarimore.com/ PainAndViolence.htm. Perry, B., & Ishnella, A. (1999). Post-traumatic stress disorders in children and adolescents. Retrieved from http://www.childtrauma.org/ctamaterials/PTSD_opin6.asp. Perry, B., & Malchiodi, C.A. (2008). Creative Interventions with traumatized children. New York: The Guilford Press. Perry, B., & Szalavitz, M. (2006). The boy who was raised as a dog: What traumatized children can teach us about loss, love, and healing. New York: Basic Books.

172    S. JOHNSON Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L.F. (2000). The internal working models concept: What do we really know about the self in relation to others? Review of General Psychology, 4, 155–175. Read, J., Perry, B. D., Moskowitz, A., & Connolly, J. (2001). The contribution of early traumatic events to schizophrenia in some patients: A traumagenic neurodevelopmental model. Psychiatry, 64(4), 319–340. Silberg, J. L. (1998). The dissociative child. Lutherville, MD: Sidran Press. Slade, E. P., & Wissow, L. S. (2007). The influence of childhood maltreatment on adolescents’ academic performance. Economics of Education Review, 26, 604– 614. Staller, J. A. (2006). Psychopharmacologic treatment of aggressive preschoolers: A chart review. Progress in Neuro-Psycopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 31(1) 131–135. Stein, P., T. & Kendall, J. (2004). Psychological trauma and the developing brain. New York: Haworth Maltreatment and Trauma Press. van der Kolk, B.A. (2006). The complexity of adaptation to traumatic stress: The effects of overwhelming experiences on mind, body and society. New York: Guilford Press. Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Child abuse: Implications for child development and psychopathology (2nd ed.) (Vol. 10 Developmental Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Zero to Three Press. (2005). Diagnositc classification of mental health and developmental disorders of infancy and early childhood. Washington, DC: Author. Zilberstein, K. (2006). Clarifying core characteristics of attachment disorders: A review of current research and theory. American Journal of Orthopschiatry, 76(1), 55–64.

Chapter 10

Teacher Education Students’ Perceptions of Gender Differences in Children Linda M. Creighton

Students have been the focus of study for more than 100 years, and this exploration continues (Papalia, Olds, & Feldman, 2006). The questions that developmental scientists seek to answer, the methods they use, and the explanations they propose for students in teacher education programs are more sophisticated and more eclectic than they were 25 years ago (Parke, 2004). As the study of students in teacher education has matured, consensus has emerged on several fundamental points; however, several important considerations for teacher education candidates remain. For example, how well do pre-service teachers of young children understand gender-based differences in children? Gender-based differences means young boys’ and girls’ differences are driven not only by genetic (nature) influences, but also by socio-cultural influences (nurture) (Chugani, 1994; Cushner, McClelland, & Safford, 2006; Diamond & Hopson, 1998; Hanlon, 1996; Hines & Green, 1991; Hyun & Tyler, 1999; Sadker & Sadker, 1990; Shore, 1996, 1997; Tyler & Hyun, 1999; Wolfe & Brandt, 1998). Gender and Early Learning Environments, pages 173–182 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

173

174    L. M. CREIGHTON

What accounts for gender differences, and why do some emerge with age? Halpern (1997) and Neisser and colleagues (1996) suggested three gender-related aspects as a possible explanation: (1) gender roles—those behaviors, interests, attitudes, skills, and traits that a culture considers appropriate for males and females; (2) gender-typing—a socialization process whereby children at an early age learn appropriate gender roles; and (3) gender stereotypes, the preconceived generalizations made about male and female role behavior. The explanation above prompts further questions: (1) how do pre-service candidates express and share their general stereotypical perceptions of children’s gender differences? and (2) what are the characteristics of teacher candidates’ general perceptions of children’s gender differences? Many researchers have focused on teachers’ unequal and/or different treatment by gender (e.g., Cahill & Adams, 1997; Fagot, 1985; Oettingen, 1985; Robinson & Canaday, 1978). Still others have shown that teachers’ personal beliefs affect their attitudes and classroom practice (Benz, Pfeiffer, & Newman, 1981; Bledsoe, 1983; Cahill & Adams, 1997; Delamont, 1990; Fagot, 1984; Sadker & Sadker, 1994). Little research has explored how pre-service teachers stereotypically express (stereotypical perception) their general perceptions of children’s gender differences in the classroom. In this chapter, I report the results of my study exploring pre-service teachers’ perceptions of children’s gender differences. Statement of the Problem It is sometimes difficult to comprehend the rapidity and complexity of change that has occurred in relation to human diversity and the classroom (Cushner, McClelland, & Safford, 2006). As changes in the demographics of today’s classrooms evolve, it becomes increasingly important for teachers to possess a firm understanding of the diversity of the students in their classrooms. This is important when determining appropriate instructional strategies for early childhood practitioners. These strategies must take into consideration the gender of the students as well as their developmental level (Papalia et al., 2006). The importance of gender in the process of education has permeated professional discourse for quite a few years (Noll, 2009). Stereotyping, which often begins in the home and is heavily reinforced in the commercial realm (pink for girls, blue for boys; dolls for girls, guns for boys), typically continues during the years of schooling. Boys and girls have been steered toward certain areas of the curriculum and have been prompted to follow certain career paths. Teachers are often guilty of gender bias (however unintentional) and often fail to see beyond the stereotypes and

Teacher Education Students’ Perceptions of Gender Differences in Children    175

biases to recognize their effects on the aspirations and achievements of the learner (Noll, 2009). In the early 1990s, the spotlight was clearly on the female gender. The 1992 report issued by the American Association of University Women (AAUW), How the Schools Shortchange Girls, called for reforms and legislative action to prevent prevailing patterns of discrimination to bolster the selfesteem of girls and to increase the breadth and depth of their vocational and professional aspirations. All of the attention placed on girls’ education led some researchers—for example, Gurian and Stevens (2004) and Sara Mead (2006)—to argue whether there was a crisis in the education of boys. Gurian and Stevens, researchers in gender differences and brainbased learning at the Gurian Institute, contended that our schools, structurally and functionally, do not fulfill gender-specific needs and that this is particularly harmful to boys. Mead, a senior policy analyst at Education Sector in Washington, DC, noted, on the other hand, that data from the National Assessment of Education Progress show that the crisis emphasis is unwarranted and detracts from broader social justice issues. Considering these seemingly on-going controversies, the perceptions of teacher education students regarding the diversity of the students for whom they are responsible, especially as it relates to gender, is of paramount importance as they enter the teaching field. Purpose of the Study The purpose of my study was to determine teacher education students’ perceptions of gender differences in children. This is significant because as these students proceed through the teacher preparation program and to their own classrooms, their perceptions often determine the instructional strategies selected and implemented. Method Sample The target sample for this study, as depicted in Table 10.1, was 56 undergraduate students enrolled in the Introduction to Professional Education class in the teacher preparation program at Radford University in Radford, Virginia. The students were all at the junior and senior level and included 26 students from the Interdisciplinary Studies (Elementary Education, Middle Education, Special Education [Deaf and Hard of Hearing, PreK–12], Special Education [High Incidence Disabilities, K–12], Early Childhood Edu-

176    L. M. CREIGHTON Table 10.1  Student Majors Majors Interdisciplinary Studies English Communication Science Social Science Exercise Sport and Health Art History Psychology Dance

Number 26 3 12 3 5 2 1 1 3

cation/Early [PreK–3] Childhood Special Education [Birth–age 5]; K–12 Health and Physical Education); three students from English; 12 students from Communication Sciences and Disorders; five students from Exercise, Sport and Health Education; two students from Art; one student from History; three students from Social Science; one student from Psychology; and three students from Dance. Instrumentation I created a survey instrument to collect the data. The survey consisted of 10 statements measured on a Likert-format scale with a range of scores of 1 (strongly agree), 2 (agree), 3 (disagree), and 4 (strongly disagree). The following concepts were addressed: (1) there are distinct psychological and behavioral differences between male and female students; (2) schools are arranged to benefit boys; (3) schools are arranged to benefit girls; (4) overall intelligence scores show no gender difference; (5) females tend to do better at verbal tasks, mathematical computation, and at tasks requiring fine motor skills; (6) males excel in most spatial abilities and abstract mathematical and scientific reasoning; (7) gender roles are the behaviors, interests, attitudes, skills, and personality traits that a culture considers appropriate for males and females; (8) gender stereotyping, the acquisition of a gender role, takes place in early childhood; (9) gender stereotypes are preconceived generalizations about male or female behavior; and (10) social and cultural influences can create gender differences, not merely accentuate them. Procedure The survey was administered to the students during the first class period of the spring 2009 semester. This time was chosen because the issues ad-

Teacher Education Students’ Perceptions of Gender Differences in Children    177 Table 10.2  Item Means and Standard Deviations Survey Item

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56

1.92 3.16 3.14 2.48 2.51 2.39 1.80 1.80 1.67 1.91

.56 .56 .61 .80 .63 .52 .55 .48 .54 .47

dressed in the survey statements had not yet been addressed in the class, and I wanted to determine the perceptions of the students regarding those issues before any instruction occurred. In addition, administering the survey during the first class period of the semester ensured that all students were in attendance. The item mean and standard deviations of the 10 item survey taken by the 56 students are depicted in Table 10.2. The table reveals a high mean on items two and three, suggesting strong disagreement that schools are arranged to benefit boys and/or girls. The standard deviations are reasonable (.47 – .61) with the exception of item four (.80) suggesting a wide spread of responses from agreement to disagreement. Results Responses by Percentages As reflected in Table 10.3, 91% of the teacher education student sample (N = 56) agreed there are psychological and behavioral differences between male and female students. However, 91.1% of the sample disagreed with the two statements: (2) schools are arranged to benefit boys and (3) schools are arranged to benefit girls. Fifty percent of the sample agreed that overall test scores show no gender differences while 50% disagreed with the statement; 50% of the respondents agreed that females tend to do better with skills requiring fine motor tasks, while 50% disagreed with the statement; and 59% agreed that males excel in abstract mathematical and scientific reasoning, with 41% in disagreement. Approximately 96% of the teacher education students agreed that gender roles are those behaviors and personality traits that a culture considers appropriate for males and females, while 97% believed that the acquisition of gender roles takes place early in childhood.

178    L. M. CREIGHTON Table 10.3  Reponses by Percentage Items 1. There are distinct psychological and behavioral differences between male and female students. 2. Schools are arranged to benefit boys. 3. Schools are arranged to benefit girls. 4. Overall intelligence test scores show no gender differences. 5. Females tend to do better at verbal tasks, mathematical computation, and at tasks requiring fine motor skills. 6. Males excel in most spatial abilities and abstract mathematical and scientific reasoning. 7. Gender roles are the behaviors, interests, attitudes, skills, and personality traits that a culture considers appropriate for males and females. 8. Gender-typing, the acquisition of a gender role, takes place early in childhood. 9. Gender stereotypes are preconceived generalizations about male or female behavior. 10. Social and cultural influences create gender differences not merely accentuate them.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Strongly Disagree Disagree

17.9

73.2

7.1

1.8

0.0 1.8 10.7

8.9 7.1 39.3

66.1 66.1 41.1

25.0 25.0 8.9

3.6

44.6

48.2

3.6

1.8

57.1

41.1

0.0

25.0

71.4

1.8

1.8

23.2

73.2

3.6

0.0

35.7

60.7

3.6

0.0

16.1

76.8

7.1

0.0

Ninety-six percent of the sample believed gender stereotypes are preconceived generalizations, and 97% felt social and cultural influences create gender differences not merely accentuate them. Discussion and Implications It is of some concern that teacher education students from many different academic majors in my study do not believe schools are arranged to benefit either boys or girls, since much of the literature suggests otherwise (Benz, Pfeiffer, & Newman, 1981; Bledsoe, 1983; Cahill & Adams, 1997; Delamont, 1990; Fagot, 1984; Good & Brophy, 1994; Gurian & Stevens, 2004; Kimura, 1992; Mead, 2006; Sadker & Sadker, 1994, 2002; Sommers, 2000). In United States early childhood education, gender-fair learning environments have

Teacher Education Students’ Perceptions of Gender Differences in Children    179

been identified as an important component in a teacher’s daily practice (Cannella, 1997). Hyun (1998) attempted to identify gender bias in one group of early childhood teacher preparation students’ thinking to enable them to propose gender congruence and gender fairness in developmentally and culturally appropriate practice for all young children. The role of the thoughtful, effective, and caring teacher is to find ways to support the natural tendencies and strengths of every child, while at the same time promoting behavior that is socially acceptable and that helps children meet their unique individual needs (Hyun, Eunsook, & Tyler, 2000). Perhaps one can assume that my study’s small sample of students were reflecting on their own personal experience and observation and that they are not yet aware of the situations existing across urban and rural schools and all levels of socio-economic status. The literature clearly identifies the connection between a teacher’s perceptions of gender equity and the pedagogical strategies practiced in the classroom (Papalia, Olds, & Feldman, 2006). Much more research is needed to identify appropriate and effective strategies for teacher preparation programs aimed at helping new teachers understand the problem and to adjust their perceptions and beliefs about gender inequality in classrooms and schools. In addition, attention needs to be given to principal preparation programs so that new principals are also made aware of the importance of creating gender equity in our schools. A secondary implication from the survey results points to other problematic perceptions. Ninety-six percent of the students agreed that gendertyping takes place early in childhood; further, 83% agreed that social and cultural influences create gender differences (not merely accentuate them). Again, it seems troublesome that on one hand students agree that social and cultural influences (i.e., schools—author emphasis) are factors, but on the other hand are firmly in disagreement that schools might be practicing strategies that favor boys or girls, either academically or socially. This observation further highlights what previous research has indicated in that teachers’ personal beliefs and perceptions affect their attitudes and classroom practice, and, therefore, play a significant role in shaping appropriate gender roles, behaviors, interests, attitudes, skills, and traits (Gurian & Stevens, 2004; Mead, 2006; Noll, 2009). An area needing further investigation is the relationship between the gender of the teacher and the creation of gender-fair classroom environments. In other words, perhaps there is evidence that male teachers tend to favor males (or females) and female teachers tend to favor females (or males). This was not the purpose of my study, but the following question surfaced: What is the relationship between the gender of the classroom teacher and the manner in which teachers may treat children differently by gender?

180    L. M. CREIGHTON

Conclusions My study was limited in that it addressed a relatively small sample of preservice teachers’ stereotypical perceptions of gender differences. However, as previously mentioned researchers have indicated, teachers’ personal beliefs and stereotypical perceptions affect their attitudes and classroom practices. In education, gender-fair learning environments have been identified as an important component in a teacher’s daily practice (Cannella, 1997; Derman-Sparks, 1989; Schlank & Metzger, 1997). However, the meaning of gender fairness or how to maintain gender fairness may not have been fairly articulated. Often, gender fairness is connected with issues of equity or equal opportunity and multiculturalism (Hyun, Eunsook, & Tyler, 2000). Thus, these issues must be addressed if teachers are to create gender-fair learning environments. By using a fairly constructed knowledge of biological and sociocultural influences in gender-based differences, and by striving to imagine what gender-congruent practices need to look like, it may be possible to create gender-fair learning environments for all children. For teacher education faculty to miss the opportunity to create in their teacher candidates an understanding of the impact that their perceptions of gender may on the development of gender-fair learning environments for students is educationally, socially, ethically, and morally irresponsible. References American Association of University Women. (1992). AAUW Report: How schools shortchange girls. American Association of University Women Foundation. Benz, C. R., Pfeiffer, I., & Newman, I. (1981). Sex role expectations of classroom teachers grade 12. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 289–302. Bledsoe, J. (1983). Sex differences in female teachers’ approval and disapproval behaviors as related to their definition of sex-role type. Psychological Reports, 52, 711–714. Cahill, B., & Adams, E. (1997). An exploratory study of early childhood teachers’ attitudes toward gender roles. Sex Roles, 36(7/8), 517–529. Cannella, G. S. (1997). Deconstructing early childhood education: Social justice and revolution. New York: Peter Lang. Chugani, H. (1994). Development of regional brain glucose metabolism in relation to behavior and plasticity. In G. Dawson, & K. W. Fischer (Eds.). Human behavior and the developing brain (pp. 153–175). New York: Guilford Press. Cushner, K., McClelland, A., & Safford, P. (2006). Human diversity in education: An integrative approach (5th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill. Delamont, S. (1990). Sex roles and the school. London: Routeledge Press.

Teacher Education Students’ Perceptions of Gender Differences in Children    181 Derman-Sparks, L., & the A.B.C. Task Force. (1989). Anti-bias curriculum: Tools for empowering young children. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Diamond, M., & Hopson, J. (1998). Magic trees of the mind: How to nurture your child’s intelligence, creativity, and healthy adolescence. New York: Dutton. Fagot, B. I. (1984). Teacher and peer relations to boys’ and girls’ play style. Sex Roles, 11, 691–702. Fagot, B. I. (1985). Beyond the reinforcement principle: Another step toward understanding sex-role development. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1097–1104. Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1994). Looking in classrooms (6th ed). New York: Harper Collins. Gurian, M., & Stevens, L. (2004). With boys and girls in mind. Educational Leadership, 62, 21–26. Halpern, D. F. (1997). Sex differences in intelligence: Implications for education. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1091–1102 Hanlon, H. (1996). Early postnatal development. In Karl Priban (Ed.), Learning as self organization (pp. 112–134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hines, M., & Green, R. (1991). Human hormonal and neural correlates of sex-typed behaviors. Review of Psychiatry, 10, 536–555. Hyun, E. (1998). Making sense of developmentally and culturally appropriate practice (DCAP) in early childhood education. New York: Peter Lang. Hyun, E., Eunsook, R., & Tyler, J. M. (2000). Examination of early practitioners’ general perception of gender differences in young children. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 21(3), 337–354. Hyun, E. & Tyler, M. (April, 1999). Examination of preschool teachers’ biased perception on gender difference. Paper presented at the AERA Annual Conference, Montréal, Quebec, Canada. Kimura, D. (1992). Sex differences in the brain. Scientific American, September, 267(3), 118–125. Mead, S. (2006). The truth about boys and girls. Washington, DC: Education Sector. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard Jr., T. J., Boykin, W. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D. F., Lochlin, J. Perloff, R. Stenberg, R. J., & Urbana, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77–101. Noll, J. W. (2009). Taking sides: Clashing views on educational issues (15th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill. Oettingen, G. (1985). The influence of kindergarten teachers on sex differences in behavior. International Journal of Behavior Development, 8, 3–13. Papalia, D., Olds, S., & Feldman, R. (2006). A child’s world: Infancy through adolescence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Parke, R. D. (2004). The society for research in child development at 70: Progress and promise. Child Development, 75, 1–24. Robinson, B. E. & Canaday, H. (1978). Sex-role behaviors and personality traits of male day-care teachers. Sex Roles, 4, 853–865. Sadker, M. P. & Sadker, D. M. (1990). Sex equity handbook for schools (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. Sadker, M. P. & Sadker, D. M. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York: Touchstone.

182    L. M. CREIGHTON Sadker, M. P. & Sadker, D. M. (2002). Teachers, schools, and society. Boston: McGrawHill. Schlank, C. H. & Metzger, B. (1997). Together and equal: Fostering cooperative play and promoting gender equity in early childhood programs. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Shore, R. (1996). Culture and Mind: Cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning. New York: Oxford University Press. Shore, R. (1997). Rethinking the brain: New insights into early development. New York: Families and Work Institute. Sommers, C. (2000). The war against boys. New York: Simon and Schuster. Tyler, J. M. & Hyun, E. (1999). Differences in boys and girls. Boys, how are they different from girls? What can teachers do about it in their gender-fair practices? Journal of Early Childhood Association of Florida: Children Our Concern (Winter), 15–18. Wolfe, P. & Brandt, R. (1998). What do we know about brain research? Educational Leadership, 56(3), 8–13.

About the Contributors

Deevia Bhana, Ph.D., is Associate Professor in the School of Education at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Her email is bhanad1@ukzn. ac.za Linda M. Creighton, Ed.D., is Assistant Professor in Foundations and Teaching English as a Second Language at Radford University, Virginia. Her email is [email protected] Andrea S. Foster, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Sam Houston State University, Texas. Her email is [email protected]. Robin Fox, Ph.D., Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Early Childhood Program, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. Her email is [email protected] Eleanor S. Fulbeck, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Educational Foundations, Policy, and Practice, School of Education, University of Colorado. Her email is [email protected] Paula P. Guerra Lombardi, M.Ed., is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at, Arizona State University. Her email is [email protected]. Sandra Johnson, Ph.D. and MSW, is a researcher for the State University of New York Research Foundation. Her email is [email protected] Laurie Katz , Ed.D., is Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education at The Ohio State University. Her email is [email protected]

Gender and Early Learning Environments, pages 183–184 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

183

184    ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Janice Koch, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. She is the initiating Editor of Research on Women and Education Series and the first two volumes. Her email is [email protected] Samara Madrid, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education at the University of Wyoming. Her email is [email protected] Sue Nichols, Ph.D., is member of the Hawke Research Institute for Sustainable Societies at the University of South Australia. Her email is Sue. [email protected] Barbara E. Polnick, Ed.D., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling, College of Education, Sam Houston State University, Texas. Her email is [email protected]. Gene Polnick, M.Ed. is a Choral Director at Escamilla Intermediate in Aldine Independent School District, Houston, Texas. Marguerite Wilson, M.A., is a Ph.D. candidate and Teaching Assistant in the Department of Language, Literacy, and Culture Emphasis at the UC Davis School of Education. Her email is [email protected]

About the Editors Beverly J. Irby, Ed.D., is Associate Dean for Graduate Programs in the College of Education at Sam Houston State University and the Texas State University System Regents’ Professor. Her email is [email protected] Genevieve H. Brown, Ed.D., is Dean of the College of Education at Sam Houston State University. Her email is [email protected]