The Issue of Sexual Violence in Schools - Literature review Example

Introduction The human society has advanced economically, literary, scientifically and morally. The human society has achieved miraculous milestone soon after the Industrial Revolution. The society has principle agreement on adherence to civil and social rights. The society has designed set of rules and regulations, and the compliance of these regulations focusing upon access to economic, social, and civil rights is essential. The developed countries of the world specifically North American and European countries have expressed their firm resolve towards compliance of human rights value, and these are the places where gay and lesbian marriages are accepted, and in some cases encouraged. Unfortunately, all these social progress appear void when we hear reports of gender bias, and gender discrimination within the educational institutes. The educational institutions and academicians are the beacon of social reforms, the forum and its owners kindle progressive and visionary principles to sustain and developed society. It is discouraging to observe these vocalists of social and human rights, negating these principles in their professional attributes (Praechter, 1998, pp. 178). The article has elaborated the contributing factors which have caused gender split among the young generation. The faculty of the academic institutions are involved in certain measures which provoke differences between males and females; the steps are although deliberate but such offensive measures are so common in our schools that no one bothers to challenge or restrict such offensive statements. Discussion The sociologists have complained against the curriculum being taught to the young generations; and alleged that the basic differences between female and male society are exaggerated and highlighted in these schools. Such teachings in later stages develop a sharp edge between the students and professionals from both the genders. It is suspected that educational institutions establish primary differences between masculine and feminine in their teachings, which eventually translate into social inequality (Maher, 2001, pp. 78). It is alleged that "traditional gender ideologies and present changing gender norms affect the way gender is taught through the hidden curriculum found within every classroom today" (Lloyd, 1992, pp. 86). The schools are accused of teaching gender norms, which is source of intensifying the gender inequalities, "education is one of the leading institutions that teaches and bolsters the gender inequalities". The research reveals that the educational units form the approach and understanding of the young generation about the gender diversification, "women and men are different and unequal, and that the inequality comes from those differences, and that, therefore, such inequality is justified" (Maher, 2001, pp. 78). The educational institutes are accused of promoting such differences, and tutorial and lectures are designed such that gaps between masculine and feminine are further exaggerated. The concept of twin goals have been floated which intend to offer students with the skills essential for the continuation of political work as feminists, it is stressed that the provisions different from perspective and educational experience shall be explored and realised (Weiler, 2004, pp. 456). The gender bias was previously common in the educational institutes. Earlier in 18th century, the females were denied access to education, and the education was reserved for the boys. A general impression prevailed previously which doubted the mental capacity and ability of the females, "women could not withstand and would not wish to subject themselves to the rigors of higher education" (Lloyd, 1992, pp. 86). The admission of the females in some of the academic institutions was granted not to promote literacy among the females, but rather the only intent was to please the men during their educational careers. The gender bias in educational institutions also shared some myths or psychological warnings, it was warned that by bringing men and women together in the same class, and making them study together shall homogenised their aptitude and approach, and therefore "coeducation would dilute the mysterious attraction of the opposite sex, and would cause homosexuality" (Praechter, 1998, pp. 176). The schools are generally accused of promoting gender bias and inequality through their teaching practices, although it is agreed that these practices are not deliberate. The teaching methodology adopted by the teachers in cases has certain remarks which have the potential to segregate men and women as separate entity. In almost every schools, the boys are often provided with heavy blocks, trucks, airplanes, and carpentry tools during free time, whereas the girls are provided dolls and homemaking equipment; this classification of toys in actual develops gender disparity. The teachers upon entering their classes offer their regards to the students by saying "good morning boys and girls" (Darder, 2003, pp. 245), this common greeting itself classifies the students into boys and girls. In schools, the teachers often inspire the boys and girls with adventurous stories and characters, the characters of bravery are often assigned to boys whereas the girls are considered to be reflection of beauty and innocence. In schools, generally the boys are considered suitable for engineering and technical subjects, whereas the girls are encouraged to participate in arts and music. In schools there is common perception relevant to the academic excellence, the boys excel in mathematics, science, and technology, whereas the girls excel in arts and music (Wayne, 2003, pp. 224). From the given examples, it is evident that the gender classification is extremely common practice in schools, and such teaching mode can develop gender inequality within the young generation. It is understandable that "teachers are almost always unaware of the biased behaviours they exhibit through verbal interactions, eye contact, and body language, which means they cannot correct themselves; but the results are crippling the potential that boys and girls possess" (Gillborn, 2000, pp. 40). Oswald has discussed that the mentality capacity of the female students have experienced restrain (Oswald, 2003). The boys are promoted and are encouraged to actively involve themselves in the regular academic affairs, but however the enthusiasm of the female students is downplayed by the faculty. In classes, the boys are often given more challenging assignments as compare to girls. The boys are often pushed to work harder, and are motivated to be consistent; however the same teachers are polite and lenient towards the girls; and “female students receive less active instruction, both in the quality and in the quality of teacher time and attention" (Lloyd, 1992, pp. 86). The difference of approaches by the teachers in the same class has the potential to widen the gap between genders; “subtle and unintended messages can create the idea among girls and boys that there are fields they cannot be successful in because of their sex" (Gillborn, 2000, pp. 42). It is complained that the educational struggle of males and females is curtailed due to several controversial issues. There have been reported cases where inappropriate teaching practices, and in-school violence have widen the gender gaps, and has especially isolated the female students. It is on record that before 1970s the access of quality educational was restricted for the female students; the female students shared limited opportunities for quality education, very few numbers of females were enrolled in law, medical and engineering colleges. The females were discouraged to participate in the school athletics (Blair, 1995, pp. 77). In 1972, the American Congress approved legislation which allowed access to educational opportunities to the females, and discouraged any such practices within academic institutions responsible for widening of gender gaps. The Congress approved Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, "which provided an equal opportunity to all in educational programs and activities" (Lloyd, 1992, pp. 86). Taylor has insisted that the concept of Single-Sex Schools is nascent and rarely popular. The establishment of single-sex schools are once considered to be positive measure to avoid gender confrontation and bias, but this preventive measure has further exploited gender bias (Taylor, 2004). The state governments have established several single-sex schools to "improve academic performances and reduce gender stereotypes" (Sadker, 2002). Such academic system has been partially successful in the elimination of "social distractions and allowed better concentration on academics, but the lack of planning, resources and qualified teachers, recruitment and advertising made it unsuccessful" (Sadker, 2002). It is important for such schools to operate under "agenda of gender-equitable education", which requires empowerment of every girl and boy (Wayne, 2003, pp. 230). The Title IX has strongly protested against such schools, it has been realised that it is "difficult to meet the needs of boys and girls socially and educationally while still complying with gender equity laws" under single-sex schools (Sadker, 2002). The benefit associated with single-sex schools includes improvement of quality of education; however it is essential to revise the specific policy as it ha failed to yield positive results (Blair, 1995, pp. 78). It is important for the government to focus upon teacher training programs; such programs shall resolve the social issues and shall be helpful in the promotion of gender equity in academic institutes (Lloyd, 1992, pp. 87). The sexual violence in schools is another important reason behind the gender inequality. The cases of sexual assaults inside schools are higher on annual basis, "females continue to be more often the victims than perpetrators of crime in our society" (Sadker, 2002). At elementary school level, the girl students are often teased and bullied by boys, "such offence lead to more violent forms of behaviour, like sexual harassment if it is not resolved" (Goodman, 2002, pp. 140). These activities restrict the participation of females in educational institutes, and therefore female students are always reluctant to engage themselves in school activities unless sharing any support from boy or group of boys. It is therefore important to revise and improve the disciplinary policies; this shall be possible by development of a plan to prevent and control such behaviour in schools. The suspension and exclusion of the students from the schools is referred as unhealthy, and negative result-oriented practice, rather it is important to train and treat the boys for their approach. A healthy educational environment can only be established by bridging the gaps between males and females (Lloyd, 1992, pp. 87). Sadker has verified that the gender bias is common at higher academic levels. Such gender bias was although not provoked in this highest academic level, but rather gulf which was cracked at early childhood level has by then widened (Sadker, 2002). There are reports that, “unequal earnings exist among the faculty despite the equality in access to education" (Wayne, 2003, pp. 230). It is common observation that "women are the minorities of faculties in terms of rank and institutional prestige, but they take an active role to administration in decisions relating to educational policies in certain cases only" (Praechter, 1998, pp. 179). It is however encouraging to notice that the female students "represents a majority at nearly all levels of higher education and are not distinctively disadvantaged in terms of institutional position" (Sadker, 2002). The performance of female students at this academic level is however positive and it certainly includes support of relevant interfaces i.e. "supportive environment of faculty, career advisors and parental encouragement" (Wayne, 2003, pp. 230). The success of the female education at higher education level is therefore due to the active involvement of the university staff. The support from the higher education institutes offer equal opportunity to the females to outshine and excel. Sadker has hoped that the government shall essentially focus upon the primary-level teachers. It is important to realise that the rectification of this gender inequality is not possible by counselling by girls and boys, but rather the counselling of the teachers is essential for this purpose (Sadker, 2002). These teachers have to improve and improvise their teaching habits in a manner that the girls do not feel offend and distinct. The teachers have to offer equal playing field to the young girls, and have to inspire and motivate these girls to meet at par of excellence. The standard criteria shall be established for all the students, and no soft approach shall be adopted against females. It is important for the teachers to realise not to offer and direct any opportunity to the girls; let the girls have choices and let these girls choose upon their own will. The role of the teachers shall be as supporting interface, these teachers are not there to direct and decide on the behalf of the students. It is therefore important for the government to conduct structured preparation for the teachers with special focus on the gender issues in education. The teachers shall be therefore be trained for "well-designed course fashioned on current research and thinking about gender issues in education" which can improve the knowledge, awareness and practice (Goodman, 2002, pp. 141). Conclusion The gender equality is essential for the social prosperity of this world. Our society is already exposed to series of differences including racial, ethnic, economic, cultural, linguistic, religious and social. Under these circumstances, when all the efforts are concentrated to decompose these differences, the wakening of gender inequality shall create deep impact on the progress of our society. It is concluded that the children since their early education should be encouraged to participate and perform collectively, and shall be considered for an assignment on merit rather than gender bias. Such constructive approach can positively dampen the surviving spirit of gender inequality, and kindle the hope for gender equality. References 1. Goodman J, Martin J (2002). Gender, Colonialism and Education: The Politics of Experience. Woburn Press. Pp. 123-154. 2. Wayne M (2003). So What’s A Boy? Addressing Issues of Masculinity and Schooling. Open University Press. Pp. 213-234. 3. Blair M, Holland J (1995). Debates and Issues in Feminist Research and Pedagogy: A Reader. Open University. Pp. 76-78. 4. Praechter., C (1998). Educating the Other: Gender, Power and Schooling. Falmer Publication. pp. 176-188. 5. Gillborn D, Mirza H (2000). Educational Inequality: Mapping Race, Class and Gender: Synthesis of Research Evidence. Oxford Publication. pp. 34-45. 6. Maher, F A (2001). The Feminist Classroom: Dynamics of Gender Race and Privilege. Lanham MD. Pp. 76-79. 7. Lloyd B (1992). Gender Identities and Education: The Impact of Starting School. Harvester Publication. pp. 85-87. 8. Oswald, D. P., Best, A. M., Coutinho, M. J., & Nagle, H. A. L. (2003). Trends in the special education identification rates of boys and girls: A call for research and change. Exceptionality. Vol. 11(4), 223-237. 9. Taylor, D. L. (2004). Not just boring stories: Reconsidering the gender gap for boys. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy. Vol. 48(4), 280-288. 10. Zittleman, K., Sadker, D. (2002). Gender bias in teacher education texts. Journal of Teacher Education. Vol. 53(2), 168-180. 11. Darder, A., Baltodano, M. & Torres. (2003). The Critical Pedagogy Reader. Routledge Falmer New York. pp. 234-354. 12. Weiler, K. (1991). Feminist Analyses of Gender and Schooling. Routledge Publication. pp. 449-474. Read More