tendency to promote and sustain the idea of heterosexuality as the norm and very much
the only option. This is done in a numerous amount of ways. To start it is apparent in the
way many primary schools are structured and ran. Many headline stories in the media have
been dominated by the lack of male role models in our primary schools and how schooling
has become feminized. This creates an enormous side effect in the male role models that
are already in the profession, which can result in ‘displays of exaggerated or hyper -masculinities to demonstrate their masculine credentials to themselves and the public at
large’(Renold 2005:27) This statement is all too familiar with some males in the profession
feeling they have to prove how masculine they are to the general public in order to gain
their trust. Many head-teachers are male, therefore creating, for many, the only masculine
role model many children may have in their lives ( if they come from single mother families
etc) as being harsh and therefore a subject of dislike and fear. The whole set up of primary
schools is very much based on the ideals of a traditional patriarchal family, Wherein
teachers who are mainly females are the mothering and nurturing part of the family and
the male head teacher represents the ‘harsh authoritarian father’ (Renold 2005:26) This is
commonplace in primary schools and gives children a definite structure regarding gender
roles and sexualities of males and females from a very young age, that the traditional
patriarchal family is what is expected and what is classed as the norm. Emma Renold(2005)
states in her book Girls, Boys and junior sexualities that the well known phrase of wait until
your father gets home and being sent to the head teacher are very much in harmony with
each other, that is to say they bare an uncanny resemblance. Although males are mostly
considered in this theory it is not necessarily true. Renolds carries on to say that ‘head
teachers do not need to be male to be the bearers of authoritarian masculinity’(Renold
2005:26.) She then goes onto discuss an example wherein a child, who was deemed the
‘toughest’ boy in the school was reduced to tears by a female head teacher and begged not
to be sent back to her to be disciplined. Many feminists have described the primary school
as a masculine free zone. Also Skelton has said that it isn’t a surprise or a coincidence that
the reduction in the nuclear family and the sore in single mother families coincides with this
idea of male role models being merely associated with lack of care, love and nurture but
simply as figures of authority and discipline(Renold 2005:27). This suggests an enormous
impact on how sexuality is perceived and put across merely in the structural sense of a
primary school. This again reiterates the earlier point of media and cultural aspects of life
playing a large role in how children perceive sexuality and gender, as well as substantially
proving Wallis and Vaneverys statement that heterosexuality is vital to primary schooling,
as this is what it is based upon.
Teachers are trained in a particular way to deal with children and what to teach them
regarding sexuality. The national curriculum has created a programme called ‘Sex and
Relationship Education’. Within this programme the DfEE has said that ‘children should be
taught about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and bringing up
children’ ( Renold 2005:31). Although the DfEE deny that they are promoting any form of
sexual orientation over another , nowhere does it refer to any other type of sexuality other
than when it is talking about being bullied and harassed (Renold 2005:31). This can be
problematic in the emotional stability of many children as the guidance unofficially
promotes heterosexuality and the idea of the nuclear family whilst ignoring all other forms
of sexual orientation, this can create a great confusion if children have been bought up
being surrounded by a different sexual orientation, which could hinder them in social,
emotional and even academic levels if they are worried or stressed, causing them to be at a
disadvantage in all other areas of schooling. Also the lack of support the teachers are able
to give due to the restricted nature of the guidance it ‘prevents many teachers ( and
government officials) from recognising and thus effectively supporting the pleasures, pains
and power relations embedded in children’s own relationship cultures.’( Renold 2005:31)
Over the last year we have seen teachers being ridiculed in the press for telling pupils to be
less gay, due to the fact that they have not had enough information on how to cope with
questions that children may ask or issues they may be having within their own sexual
identity. This couples with the thinking that children are innocent and therefore do not
need much support in the area of sexual orientation, providing problems for both teachers
and pupils when guidance is in reality needed but support is not offered for either teacher
or pupil. Carrying on with the notion of sexual orientation, teachers who are not
heterosexual tend to keep their sexual affairs private and feel the need to cut off that part
of themselves whilst at work in case of both pupil and teacher ridicule, This again is another
way in which heterosexuality dominates the primary school. Renold says that ‘ even out gay
teachers are read as heterosexual, such is the pervasiveness of children’s own
hetronormative assumptions and imagined futures’ ( Renold 2005:29). An example is shown
when a teacher asked children to draw themselves grown up over half of the girls drew
pictures of themselves as brides or with young children, showing how the influence of
heterosexuality is prominent. Rather than questioning the children the teacher simple
stated how lovely the picture was and accepted thats what they wanted to be without
problematising it in the slightest. This idea of marriage and babies again relates back to the
DfEEs Sexual Relationship Education guidance. (Renold 2005:31) Again just one more way in
which primary schooling is regulating sexuality. This is not the only example Renolds gives
of children being subject too teachers heterosexual ideas, in another example an extract
from Skeltons field notes a primary school PE teacher positions himself as a ‘sex object’ in a
flirtatious manner and asked children to go and get ready and then stated ‘you’ll want to be
quick girls because I’ve got my sexy shorts with me today’ and then he wiggles his hips.
Another example of reinforced heterosexuality and also giving the girls the mixed emotions
‘in feeling gratified by male objectification’ (Renold 2005:30)
Gender identities in the classroom are reinforced in speech and the way in which the
teachers communicate to children from a very young age. Constantly (even parents in the
street) we hear statements like ‘ do you want to be a big boy?’ or ‘ well done, you were a
big girl weren’t you’. The link between mature behaviour and grown –up identities is
undeniably strong. Within the schooling environment Spencer Cahill noted that ‘he found
that adult staff used “baby” as a sanctioning term’ (Thorn 1993:35). So in contrast to the
praise of ‘big boys’ and ‘big girls’ children start to distinguish their identities through gender
so that they are not seen as babies ( Thorn 1993:35). This is the start of how children begin
to mould their own gender status, with the undeniable influence of teachers and adults.
Many times we see the classroom being separated by the label of boys on one side and girls
on another. Thorn (1993) observed that when children were allowed to make their own
choices as to where they were going to sit in the classroom three times there was a definite
divide between boys and girls, boys being on one side and girls on the other. The teacher
would use the threat of making girls sit with boys as a tactic to keep the classroom calm.
The class moaned regarding this and especially the thought of the genders being mixed
rather than spate in their seating ( Thorn 1993:37). This example is an indication of both
teacher and pupils overall consensus regarding gender in the classroom, that males should
be with males and females with females, reflecting the constant regulation and previous
influences the curriculum and teachers had on the children as well as their own peers, each
creating an identity either for themselves or for others. Thorn stated that he noticed whilst
observing a classroom of students that males were more vocal than females in their
opinions and class discussions. There could be many reasons for this, the idea that males
have the right to authorative and dominating actions more so than females could be one of
them. It could be due to the fact that the role models in their lives that are male are like
this and are the ones who are in charge. Children could be mimicking what they have been
subject to and subconsciously feel they are entitled to be like. Another example of this is in
another study Barrie Thorn (1993) did in the classroom where Miss Bailey, the teacher
asked a question and started with the girls, leaving the ‘harder answers’ to the boys. The
boys response to this was ‘were smart!’, obviously picking up on the theme of gender
opposition (Thorn 1993:38). The fact many see the gender divide as a competition is
another interesting point, that in schools there is lots of rivalry between the sexes. Good
examples of this can be seen in the playground where games are infiltrated by the girls and
boys refuse to let them play in certain sports, such as football, simple because of the fact
they are female.
‘In response to the question ‘do girls and boys behave differently in class or not?’, 95% of
the girls and 75% of the boys provided affirmative answers’ (Francis 1998:32) This result
proves that regulation of gender is very much apparent within the children’s minds and
social lives. That self regulation and summarisation of their behaviour due to their gender
and sex is prominent in their minds and they are aware of this. Durkin said that ‘by the age
of seven children usually understand that sex is fixed , and at this point they begin to refine
and elaborate their understanding of gender issues’( Durkin 1987 ‘quoted in’ Francis
1998:33) Becky Francis conducted an interview with ‘leek’ a male aged seven , to which
one of his responses was ‘coz girls things are for girls and boys’ things are for boys’. This is a
definite answer and gender separation even though he goes onto state how he thinks girls
should be able to play basketball and boys play with dolls, yet alleys his fear when he states
that if he played with Barbie he said ‘they’d think I’m gay’ ( Francis 1998:38).This again
shows how the idealism of the nuclear family and in turn heterosexuality taught in primary
schools has an impact on children’s gender and how he fears being thought of as gay.
In conclusion childhood identities are very much constructed by outside influences of
parents , peers and especially the primary school, through teachers own beliefs and
safeguards as well as the actual curriculum produced by the state. Gender is almost
immediately integrated into a Childs life throughout the educational system and sexual
identities seem to be somewhat fabricated with the idea of males feeling the need to show
hyper-masculinity in order to cement their role within the feminised world of the primary
school, there being no doubt that this impacts on children’s idea of what they should be like
as adults, especially if they have had no other male role models in their life. The regulation
of sexual and gender identity is ongoing in primary schools through the promotion of
heterosexuality and the ideal nuclear family unit as being something to aspire too when
your older rather than careers etc. Therefore primary schools play a huge role in influencing
or confusing children about sexual identity and gender roles.
Bibliography
Francis, B. (1998) Power plays, primary school children’s constructions of gender ,power and adult work. Stoke On Trent: Trentham books Ltd.
Renold, E. (2005) girls, boys and junior sexualities, exploring children’s gender and sexual relations in the primary school. Abingdon: Routledgefalmer.
Skelton, C. (2001) Schooling the boys, masculinities and primary education. Buckingham : Open university press
Thorne, B. (1993) Gender Play, Girls and Boys in school. Buckingham: Open university press.