THE decade of the 1990s has shown significant gains in schooling among girls in India. The percentage of girls attending school in the 6-10 year age group in rural areas increased from 55% in 1992-93 to 75% in 1998-99 (NFHS, 2000). Nevertheless, a large number of girls are still out of school and hence access to primary education continues to be a matter of urgency, particularly among girls from economically marginalized and socially vulnerable groups. What is of equal concern but has received little policy or research attention is the quality of the educational experience in schools. Does ‘gender’ or the social and cultural definitions of ‘male’ and ‘female’ influence the education that girls receive? Do school practices and class-room processes reflect gender equity, i.e. are they gender just?

There are surprisingly few studies on the education of girls in India and barely any systematic focus on school and classroom processes which include the curriculum, pedagogy, teacher attitudes, peer interaction as well as institutionalized rituals and practices. This paper attempts to understand how gender identity influences the experience of education in schools. Reviewing available studies, it explores how gender is contextualized within schools and pervades classroom processes. It suggests that though the number of girls who enroll in schools is increasing, they may fail to receive an education that is equitable.

 

 

The status of the girl child in India relative to boys is reflected in human development indicators such as higher female infant mortality rate, low sex ratio (shockingly so in some parts of the country) and poorer nutritional care. Educational statistics also reveal disparities in school enrolment rates between girls and boys that sharpen at higher stages of education. Feminist scholars have emphasized the importance of a gender perspective to understand and explain the dynamics of education for girl children. While the ‘social classification of attributes and qualities into ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are reflected in the realm of culture, the material basis and unequal power that underlie social relations between men and women influence the allocation of resources, roles and entitlements at the level of individual households and thereby influences decision-making in relation to the education of children. Other dimensions of social structure in India such as caste and community status are also constitutive of gender dynamics and influence the nature of participation in educational institutions.

The making of gender identity begins in the family as children internalize what are seen as culturally appropriate qualities and attitudes associated with being ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ through socialization. Though the process varies among different social groups, the concern with the protection and control of female sexuality and notions of ‘family honour’ linked to norms of appropriate behaviour for women bring home to girls the centrality of home and hearth in their lives. The division of tasks between parents and among siblings, customs and rituals, toys and games played, exposure to media and so on influences the learning of gender roles and attributes. For instance, nurturing, modesty and submissiveness are seen as important qualities of ‘femininity’, essential to the survival of the family.

Cultural norms as well as family livelihood strategies place girls’ education at a greater risk than that of boys. Studies reveal that parents are less enthusiastic about sending girls to schools for reasons that are economic as well as socio-cultural. The relatively greater concern with the education of sons as compared to daughters is related to the perception of girls’ ‘temporary’ status in their natal homes, the informal social contract that obliges sons to provide for the economic security of parents in their old age, the sexual division of labour within the family, and the relatively greater burden of household and survival tasks placed on girls.

 

 

Though girls’ education is gradually becoming more of a social norm, it is still heavily influenced by considerations of marriage and ‘status production’ rather than the need for economic security for the individual or her family. Thus when girls are ‘ready for marriage’ and social taboos to their mobility set in, or there is need for extra hands within the home, or finances do not permit, it is girls who are more likely to be pulled out of schools than boys. Policy recommendations that emphasize easy access to facilities for schooling, female teachers, child-care support as well as incentives such as free textbooks and mid-day meals, as well as community mobilization for education, attempt to address some of the cultural and economic constraints to school entry and retention. However, these are mainly directed towards increasing the access to education and encouraging parents to send girls to school rather than with the quality of learning experience for children in general and girls in particular.

 

 

Girls are at a disadvantage in relation to boys not merely in relation to their chances of school entry and retention but in the kind of academic environments provided by the home as well. For instance, boys tend to have an advantage over their female siblings in terms of resources invested in their education, time made available for studies within the home, academic support (such as tuition or private coaching) and other educational experiences provided to children. Reviewing available data, Mukhopadhyay comments that ‘even the well-off, education oriented families …view educational achievement, especially in scientific fields, differently for girls than boys, and are less inclined to invest family resources in the academic success of daughters than sons’¹ (1994:108-109). Equally that a larger proportion of boys relative to girls are enrolled in private as compared to government schools, especially in rural areas, receive extra school support in the form of tuition (or private coaching) and are more likely to be sent to hostels to purse their education.

The expansion of the private sector in education as well the growing number of alternative schools (single/two teacher, government/community run schools) has important implications for girls’ education. On the one hand an increasing proportion of girls, particularly from lower caste and tribal communities, are being enrolled in government and alternative schools making gender identity a criteria of access to unequal schooling (Ramachandran, 2002). On the other hand, there are also consequences for the self-esteem of girls that Manjrekar calls attention to. She says that, ‘The dichotomy that has been set up between boys – superior/private, and girls – inferior/government, has its own tragic consequences for the self-esteem and identity of girls.’ She speaks of girls ‘who, with considerable anguish, question but also resign themselves to this divide which casts them as educationally less deserving than their brothers’ (2003:4582).

 

 

Children acquire gender identity and an understanding of gender roles prior to their entering school. However, schools play an important part in reinforcing identities to the detriment of the educational experience that girls receive. Studies point both to the embedding of a ‘code’ of ‘gender appropriate behaviour’ in the formal curriculum of official school knowledge as well as in the hidden curriculum communicated informally by the larger culture and practices of schooling, including teacher attitudes and peer interaction (Acker, 1994; Manjrekar, 1999). The section that follows briefly highlights research findings that are pertinent to the quality of the learning experience for girls. The focus is on co-educational schools, the norm at all stages of education in India.

Gender usually functions as an organizational category in schools. Bhattacharjee’s study of two municipal schools in Baroda documents what is quite commonly seen in schools: boys and girls lining up separately for assembly and other formal activities, segregated classroom seating arrangements and roll call taken separately for each sex. Similar groupings are also visible for academic and extra-curricular tasks. School authorities defend these arrangements on grounds of convenience, little appreciating that they tend to convey a stamp of official approval to gender segregation in school (Bhattacharjee, 1999).

 

 

The allocation of routine tasks by teachers also reinforces gender stereotypes. In many schools girls can be found doing the more ‘light’ and decorative tasks such as tidying up and arranging the classroom or handing over a bouquet to visitors, while the help of boys is called for when the task is perceived as requiring ‘strength’ such as lifting furniture or technical skills such as ‘fixing lights’ and so on. Where children of lower socio-economic groups predominate, they may be expected to perform more menial tasks, again on the basis of gender.

Rathnam’s observations of a primary school in Tamil Nadu where dalit and lower caste children predominate are revealing: ‘Chores around the school were divided strictly according to gender. Girls wielded the broom, washed dishes (water pot, glasses), and fetched water if the containers were small. Boys picked up stray bits of paper, carried large drums of water or heavy things, climbed heights when necessary, rang the bell, opened and locked the classrooms, and ran errands outside the campus’ (2002:248).

 

 

Gender identity also influences teacher attention and classroom participation. The socialization of girls equips them to more easily play the role of ‘good students’ – they tend to be well behaved and keen to follow instructions. Paradoxically, these very qualities result in teachers focusing largely on boys who are more noisy and disorderly. Lafrance, in a review of classroom research in North America, says that while boys are censured more frequently because of their misbehaviour, they also receive more ‘academic attention’, ‘instructional emphasis’ and positive messages about their potential as compared to girl students. Further, they participate more in the classroom and tend to dominate discussions whereas girls are quieter (Lafrance, 1991).

Similar studies of Indian schools are not available though some scholars do point to girls being quieter in class and participating less frequently than boys in academic discussions. Teacher expectations, appreciating conformity to ‘feminine behaviour’, also receives mention. Dube’s report of her experience in a school in rural Maharashtra is revealing. She notes that while in the ‘junior-most class’ boys and girls sat together singing the same song, by class VII girls were sari clad and sat on the floor separately from boys who were seated on wooden benches. Despite repeated requests, the girls ‘sat coyly and …refused to open their mouths’ though the boys ‘were cocky…and in full-throated voices sang confidently…’ She goes on to say that ‘the teacher who was male …seemed to appreciate and understand their (the girls) reticence and shyness’ (1988:189-190). Karlekar also describes women teacher trainees who are ‘diligent about homework and perform well in the unit tests.’ However, they are also quiet and reserved, ‘non-participants’ in the classroom, and ‘rarely take part in discussions which are dominated by boys’ (2000).

 

 

Peer interaction is one of the least explored areas of research. To the casual eye, children tend to form single sex peer groups in school. Girls can be found clustering together while boys often occupy larger physical spaces both within and outside the classroom and appear to have a run of the entire playground as well. Bhattacharjee’s research shows that both boys and girls maintain boundaries between the genders and informal cross-sex interaction is mainly during moments of conflict between boys and girls (1999).

Bassi, in her study of a Kendriya Vidyalaya in Delhi, suggests that girls actively attempt to create and protect their own physical spaces from boys who are often aggressive in their interaction with girls as also tend to ridicule and dismiss them (Bassi, 2003). School authorities appear to make little effort to encourage healthy relations between boys and girls and in fact tend to use the symbolic divide between them to discipline and control students, especially boys. Making a boy ‘sit with the girls’ is often used as a form of punishment. By using the crossing of gender boundaries to serve as a ‘shaming technique’, teachers and school authorities only serve to reinforce the symbolic divide between male and female (Bhattacharjee, 1999).

Teachers prefer to view social interaction between the genders in the framework of sibling relations (Bhattacharjee, 1999; Bassi, 2003). This appears to be a strategy to guard against transgression of norms of social distance, which underlie the relationship between non-kin men and women. However, they also view boys as ‘naturally boisterous’ and thereby dismiss rather than seriously address aggressive behaviour against girls often reported in schools.

There is also the issue of sexual abuse, usually kept under wraps. Incidents of sexual abuse of girl students by peers and teachers are occasionally reported in the press but school authorities usually deny that physical security of girls within school is a matter of concern. However, it is obvious that if the culture within school is one of domination and intimidation of girls, it can only further marginalize and constrain their participation in school.

 

 

In the average government school, ‘official knowledge’ is largely limited to the textbook, which forms the basis of curriculum transaction. Lessons are read out, copied and memorized and subsequently evaluated. The boundaries of legitimate (textbook) knowledge are clearly demarcated from popular or ‘commonsense knowledge’ or children’s own understanding and interpretation of what they learn and experience. How does the textbook represent social reality where gender is concerned? What are the qualities that inform the construction of masculinity and feminity as they are represented in the textbook?

Analysis of school textbooks indicates that women lack visibility in the official school curriculum and lessons are largely male centred. Karlekar, drawing on a 1986 study of the Hindi textbooks published by the NCERT, Delhi, showed that ‘the ratio of boy-centred stories to girl-centred stories was 21:1. Of the 13 English language textbooks published by the Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad, boy-centred stories outnumbered girl centred stories by eighty-one to nine’ (2000:83). Bhog’s analysis of language textbooks of classes III, V and VII finds that that even in the books in the decade of the 1990s (i.e. after the 1986 National Policy on Education which called for a removal of gender bias in textbooks), women are barely visible. In nearly 50% of the 75 lessons she reviewed, men were the only actors (2002:1640).

 

 

Of concern is the portrayal of women in textbooks. In language textbooks women are represented mainly in stereotypical gender roles as wives and mothers, largely confined to the private world of the home. Outside the home they rarely appear in professional roles (other than occasionally as school teachers and at times as nurses) and continue to be largely concerned with the family. The qualities emphasized in relation to female protagonists are familiar: warmth, affection, love, nurture, vulnerability and needing protection. Male characters on the other hand come across as strong, brave, independent and determined (ibid).

A few lessons do portray female protagonists in more active and challenging roles that differ from the usual gender stereotypes. Bhog points out that in her review of 75 lessons in the language textbooks, barely three ‘make a genuine attempt to represent women in a different light’ (2002: 1640). One of the examples is the lesson on Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi whose story provides enormous potential for challenging traditional stereotypes of women. However, Bhog shows that while qualities such as ‘courage’, ‘strength’ and ‘struggle’ are given premium in narratives of ‘great men’, Laxmibai is depicted as ‘a great rider and fighter’ but nevertheless ‘vulnerable’, ‘prone to depression’ (at the death of her husband and son) and ‘doubt’. The analysis of textbooks suggest that school knowledge plays an important role in reinforcing and ‘naturalizing’ identities of male and female that need to be seriously contested. They are based on distorted portrayals of gender roles that bear little semblance to the diversity of roles that women play in society and offer poor role models for girls.

 

 

When curricular choices are made after secondary school, girls tend to cluster in what are perceived as the more ‘feminine’ arts and humanities courses, while a relatively larger proportion of boys are found in ‘career oriented’ science, commerce and, more recently, computer courses. These subject choices reflect gender inequality in education and constrain future options and life chances of girls.

Why do a large majority of girls opt out of science and show a disinclination for mathematics? Some scholars foreground gender socialization and the lesser exposure of girls to games and experiences that develop abilities (spatial, abstract thinking) and interests that orient them towards science and mathematics as compared to boys. Subject choices are also partly influenced by parental concern that daughters do not jeopardize their chances for a ‘successful’ marriage by aspiring to non-conventional careers that interfere with familial responsibilities and expectations.

As mentioned earlier, girls may not be provided academic support that encourages their aspirations for professional and technical education, as are their male siblings. There is also the problem of access where facilities for science education are concerned. Mukhopadhyay reports that, ‘All girl schools often lack science streams …which forces them to go to coeducational schools. Even where science streams/options exist, labs/equipment are often inferior to equivalent male schools’ (Mukhopadhyay, 1994:128).

Most research suggests that the official and the hidden curriculum in schools tends to reinforce rather than challenge the gender based subject choices of boys and girls. Studies point out that science and mathematics are presented as ‘masculine’ subjects in school. Women appear in marginal roles in science textbooks and there is an absence of positive female role models for girls to identify with. For instance, a colourful picture in a lesson on solids, liquids and gases in the class III EVS textbook has men and women in it but in strikingly different roles. Women are shown as wives and mothers and in passive roles. Men on the other hand come across as ‘doers’, their ‘work related’ roles and technical skills receive emphasis.

 

 

Language textbooks at the primary stage often contain a lesson or two that orient children to science. For instance, the NCERT prescribed language reader for class V has a lesson on ‘The Story of Science’ that is a description of man and his discoveries. The only mention of a woman is to show that with scientific advances travel time has drastically reduced. The story is told of the ‘beautiful young Chinese princess’ who was sent by her father to marry the king of Persia but married his son instead because the king died in the two years it took her to reach Persia! The readers are informed that in today’s world, she would have reached in two hours. The two scientists mentioned and whose pictures are given are Newton and Marconi.

Some textbooks carry the story of Madame Curie, an important role model for girls. Bhog argues that Maria Curie’s portrayal is treated through a gender lens as the narrative highlights Maria’s domestic responsibilities and emphasizes her ability to successfully take on the burden of home and work. To Bhog, these are narrative devices employed so that women are ‘tamed into not being too out of this world, too different, too challenging’ (2002:1641).

 

 

As mentioned earlier, scholars also point to the unequal treatment of girl pupils in comparison to boys in the classroom. Research by western scholars on the experience of girls in maths and science classrooms points to the hidden curriculum, of teacher bias towards boys, their critical attitudes towards academic work of girls, the male-centred tasks and activities as well as the ‘masculine’ atmosphere in science labs as partly responsible for undermining girls’ interests and sense of confidence in these subjects (Kirkup and Keller, 1992).

The foregoing discussion raises a number of issues that go far beyond the present concern of merely bringing girls to primary school or even increasing transition rates to middle school. If education is the process of developing personhood and capacities such as independent thinking, autonomy and critical judgment, then schools must endeavour to provide the institutional space to facilitate this. Where girls are concerned, available research suggests that schools often tend to reinforce narrowly constructed identities, and stereotypical gender roles, thereby constraining their choices and options.

Though schools are embedded in the larger social structure characterized by hierarchical gender relations and ideologies that devalue the position of women, attempts must be made to push the limits and explore the possibilities of change through schools, particularly as they offer public space that is obliged to be informed by principles of equality. Thus it is necessary to critically review school knowledge and pedagogic practices from the perspective of gender equity and provide meaningful learning opportunities for all children. The hidden curriculum is of particular concern as it provides a powerful learning context (even when little teaching and learning appears to be overtly going on), since gender is used as an organizational principle and a mechanism for control in school, pervading teacher attitudes and peer interaction as well. However, it is also important to understand how girls (particularly from the hitherto educationally deprived groups) interpret and act on the messages they receive in school and how it influences their self worth, confidence and sense of autonomy.

 

 

In order to sensitize teachers to these concerns, a gender perspective must be integrated in teacher education and training programmes and teachers involved in equity strategies that initiate changes in school policy and classroom practices. Researchers, activists and practitioners will have a crucial role to play in expanding the knowledge base and providing inputs for a gender equitable curriculum and pedagogy. The overall policy framework that informs education is important. In the present scenario where we are witnessing the spread of a communal agenda in education, with its glorification of tradition and women’s duty in relation to the stability of the family and ‘cohesion of society’, the education of girls is at particular risk. It is time that gender concerns are brought center-stage and made a critical issue in debates on education.

 

References:

Sandra Acker, (1994) Gendered Education: Sociological Refelections on Women, Teaching and Feminism. Bukingham: Open University Press.

Tripti Bassi, (2003) Gender and Education: an exploratory study of classroom processes in a primary school. Unpublished M.Phil thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Karuna Chanana, (2001) ‘Hinduism and Female Sexuality: social control and education of girls in India’, Sociological Bulletin 50(1), March 2001, pp. 37-63.

Nandini Bhattacharjee, (1999) ‘Through the Looking Glass: gender socialization in a primary school’, in T.S. Saraswathi (ed.), Culture, Socialization and Human Development. Theory, Research and Applications in India. New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 336-355.

Dipta Bhog, (2002) ‘Gender and Curriculum’, Economic and Political Weekly 37(17), pp. 1638-1642.

Leela Dube, (1988) ‘On the Construction of Gender: Hindu girls in patrilineal India’, in Karuna Chanana (ed.), Socialization, Education and Women. Explorations in Gender Identity. New Delhi: Orient Longman, pp. 166-192.

Malavika Karlekar, (2000) ‘Girls’ Access to Schooling: an assessment’, in Rekha Wazir (ed.) The Gender Gap in Basic Education: NGOs as Change Agents. New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 80-114.

Aruna Rathnam, (2002) ‘The Weft and Warp of Public Education: a tale of two primary schools in Cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu’, in Gender and Social Equity in Primary Education: Hierarchies of Access. New Delhi: The European Commission, pp. 237-258.

Nandini Manjrekar, (2003) ‘Contemporary Challenges to Women’s Education: towards an elusive goal’, Economic and Political Weekly 38(4), pp. 4577-4582.

Carol C. Mukhopadhyay, (1992) ‘Family Structure and Indian Women’s Participation in Science and Engineering’, in Carol C. Mukhopadhyay and Susan Seymour (ed.) (1994) Women, Education, and Family Structure in India. Colorado: Westview Press, pp. 103-135.

Marianne Lafrance, (1991) ‘School for Scandal: different educational experiences for females and males’, Gender and Education 3(1), pp. 3-13.

NFHS, (2000) National Family Health Survey. International Institute for Population Sciences 2001. Mumbai, India.

Vimla Ramachandran, (2002) Gender and Social Equity in Primary Education: Hierarchies of Access. New Delhi: The European Commission.

 

Footnote:

1. Scholars have suggested that socialization engenders different abilities and aptitudes among boys and girls that influence learning interests and outcomes. For instance, toys given to girls to play with such as dolls and kitchen ware are seen to orient them to domestic roles and hence constrain future aspirations and career options. Mechanical toys and puzzles, given more to boys than girls, are seen to facilitate spatial and cognitive abili ties essential for maths and science. Here boys are seen to have a headstart over girls. (Acker, 1994)