This article was downloaded by: [Thuringer University &Landesbibliothek]On: 12 November 2014, At: 11:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Years: AnInternational ResearchJournalPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceye20

Gender in the NurseryGina HoustonPublished online: 24 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Gina Houston (1988) Gender in the Nursery, Early Years: AnInternational Research Journal, 9:1-2, 73-82, DOI: 10.1080/0957514880090106

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0957514880090106

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Thu

ring

er U

nive

rsity

& L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

1:23

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Gender in the Nursery

Gina Houston - Nursery Headteacher seconded to lecture at R.I.H.E.

Much has been written about gender stereotyping and how it is

reinforced by the hidden curriculum as well as teachers attitudes and

expectations. The formal secondary school curriculum which is directed

towards examinations and qualification has been shown to discriminate

against girls within the curriculum. It stereotypes the teenager's

role in society thus reproducing expected aims and ambitions according

to gender. This research has been concentrated in secondary schools.

(Spender 1982, Whyld 1980, Lees 1987). However it is not only

secondary schools which are doing this. Early years education also has

a hidden curriculum. Children enter nursery schools having acquired a

recognition of their own gender from birth and the early years

curriculum has been shown to be influential in emphasising this.

Tan Bower (1982) videoed children at 18 months who had just begun

walking. They had definite play preferences for children of the same

sex and he showed how different patterns of walking could have been the

way the children were recognising gender differences. Is this physical

difference innate as biological determinist would have us believe? It

is the oestrogens and adrogens which determine the personality traits

as well as the outward physical differences between male and female

according to this theory. Alternatively can gender appropriate norms

of movement, as show by Bower, be learned socially at such a young age?

'From birth, children are assigned to one or other gender on the basis

of their external sex organs. They are caught up in a torrent of

myths, preconceptions and assumptions about what is 'natural',,

'appropriate' and 'normal1 for males and females to do.' (Delamont

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Thu

ring

er U

nive

rsity

& L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

1:23

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

1980.) In nursery and infant schools we are reinforcing these norms

through the liidden curriculum. This is defined by Kelly and Nihen

(1982) as 'tlie noise of the school, the messages implicit in the

authority structure of the school, its staffing patterns and the ways

in which the curriculum is transmitted and the system of records and

correct behaviour1.

The way in which the curriculum areas are organised encourages boys and

girls to use than accordingly to their learned gender roles. The way

the adults ccmrunicate differently with the girls and boys and expected

behaviour reproduce gender differences. Images portrayed through

visual aids and books reinforce the socially accepted norms of role

development for girls and boys. These are all part of the hidden

curriculum in early years education. 'Sex stereotyped attitudes and

ideas are transmitted to the children in three main ways through

language, through non-verbal actions and behaviour and through visual

images' (Franos and Browne 1986). They go on to emphasise the

importance of anti-sexist images portrayed in books and pictures.

Non-sexist children's books such as the well known 'Paper Bag Princess1

and 'Jam' are often looked at by adults as amusing and trendy and not

given such status as the more conventional fairy stories and folk

tales, which are extremely sexist in their portrayal of gender roles.

However, these non-sexist books are invaluable for giving girls and

boys an alternative to the conventionally accepted stereotypes and, if

taken seriously by adults, can be discussed with young children rather

than be dismisscjd as odd and something to be just laughed about. There

is a company based in London which distributes to parents and schools a

wide variety of non-sexist literature for the early years, so although

it may be impossible to eliminate all sexist books from our schools, it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Thu

ring

er U

nive

rsity

& L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

1:23

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

is possible to supplement them with as many positive non-sexist books

as possible. Glynnis loban (1975) researched reading schemes for young

children and found them to be overtly sexist in content. As a result

she makes a strong appeal for action in providing non-sexist books in

the classroom. Sara Delamont (1980) and Sue Sharpe (1976) both found

that catalogues in hones and schools depicted girls and boys in

stereotypical roles and playing with particular gender defined

equipment. "Itie world of toys and games offers girls a far more

restricted range of roles than it does boys, and the roles offered

girls are essentially passive, hone-centred, non-scientific,

non-technical and 'good' (Delamont, 1980). She goes on to say that the

boys roles are the opposite. They are depicted as 'Robin Hood', 'Big

Game Hunter', as well as more realistically, engineer, frogman and

boxer. This stereotyped role play is reflected in the nursery

classroom. Tizard et al (1976) found that girls played in the hone

corner and daninated this area even when boys entered the play. Boys

recognised this as the girls domain and took a passive role. This

reflects the family structure in the wide society, where wcmen are seen

as the hone makers and responsible for this area while men take a

subordinate role in the daily routine of the hone. Children as young

as three have leamt this gender appropriate behaviour and we in school

are reinforcing this in the hone comer provision, and our attitudes as

adults to this area of the curriculum.

Tizard et al (1976) also found in their research that girls used the

outdoor space much less than boys. This was supported by American

research in the same year by Lever, who places a great deal of

importance on the fact that boys use the freedon of outside space more.

than girls as a factor which influences their future relationships with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Thu

ring

er U

nive

rsity

& L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

1:23

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

their peer group. '40% of girls compared to 15% of boys spent less

than a quarter of their playtime outdoors. The sex difference has

several important implications. Girls playing indoors are necessarily

restricted in body movements and vocal expressions. Boys playing

outdoors move in larger more open space We can think of girls

indoor games as more private affairs whereas boys outdoor games are

public and open to surveillance'. These early play opportunities mean

girls form close, private relationships later in their development

within small same gender peer groups, whereas boys are much more

independent and form less intense relationships amongst a wider range

of peers. Tliis is particularly obvious in adolescence. (Sue Lees

1987) Por tliese reasons we must ensure that girls use the outdoor

space in our nursery schools and classes, otherwise girls will remain

less confident than boys in this aspect. Linda McGill (1986) suggest

ways in which vie can do this. Bar too often the outdoor space is used

for physical development with the adult supervising for safety reasons.

Quite often ci girl will be close to the female adult engaged in

conversation v/hilst the majority of the equipment is being used

predominantly by boys. This is a cannon picture as I discovered

through my own research in three nursery schools. In one observation,

the girls were enjoying 'jogging' round the playground with the female

teacher whilst the boys played football. It would have been

interesting to see what would have happened had the teacher been

playing football! If we think of outdoor provision as an extension of

that provision made indoors we can use the outdoor space for all areas

of development and areas of knowledge. .fldults will become more

involved with the activities outside and will thus interact more

positively with the children. This in tum will encourage both genders

to be involved in a broad outdoor curriculum. Girls will consequently

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Thu

ring

er U

nive

rsity

& L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

1:23

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

use the outdoor space as well as inside the classroom. The curriculum

areas can be 'mirrored' both in and out. For example, not only could

there be a science area inside the classroom but the provision could be

linked to an activity outside. Children could be encouraged to examine

objects or creatures with magnifying glasses in both areas. The home

corner inside could be linked to a 'shop' outside where, perhaps, the

'baker' is making dough and experimenting with flour and water. The

adult could be discussing the scientific concepts in this activity

while other children may be using the provision for symbolic

representational play. These kinds of suggestion form a strategy for

involving girls in outdoor play and scientific activity as well as boys

in more imaginative home comer role play. This is a more positive way

of ensuring equal access to the curriculum, than merely positive

discrimination for both groups for limited times in each curriculum

area. There are occasions when girls only can be given a time to use,

for example, the wheeled toys. However these sessions must be followed

up with discussion between both genders so as not to be seen as just

'the girls turn1. but to show why it is important to give the girls

access to this equipment.

Positive discrimination alone will not ensure equality of opportunity.

Attitudes must be changed alongside this, and this can only be done by

adults discussing whether it is fair for the boys to dominate one area

of the curriculum. Young children are perfectly capable of this kind

of reasoning especially as they have a very strong sense of justice

(Weston and Turiel in Donaldson et al 1985).

Another area of concern in reproducing sexism in early years education,

is the attitudes of school adults to girls and boys, expectations of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Thu

ring

er U

nive

rsity

& L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

1:23

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

behaviour atncngst the different genders and the language which

transmits these attitudes. Walker and Walkerdine (1982) researched six

areas in the nursery curriculum which they found to be used in gender

specific ways. However, quite often it was not because the girls did

not want to use certain equipment but because the adults did not expect

them to or encourage them to use these curriculum areas. When girls

were given the opportunity to use the lego, for example, they made just

as elaborate models as boys even though they were less technical and

related to hone comer play, such as houses and parks. The teachers

showed surprise that the girls were so skilful with the small

construction equipment. In my own research I found that girls used

this equipment much less than boys. The provision was also much more

suited to male stereotyped use. For example, the Small World play

people were space figures riding bikes and working on a construction

site. Clarricoates (1978) has examined the effects of linguistic

sexism in early years education. She found that male pronouns were

ccmnonly used in discussion of objects, animals, etc. at story tine and

throughout daily discourse. Staff used derogatory terms to describe

females, such as 'bitchy', 'fussy' and 'petty', whereas more positive

adjectives were used to describe males, such as 'adventurous',

'assertive' and 'boisterous'. France and Browne (1986) found the same

use of terns according to gender. In my own research, girls were

greeted with inore emotive phrases as "What a pretty dress!", whereas

boys were greeted with more interesting comments, such as "Who brought

you to school to-day?", phrases which encouraged more discussion from

those used with the girls. As adults working in the nursery we must be

more aware of the different ways we speak to both girls and boys and

the significance of this aspect of the hidden curriculum in reproducing

sexism. Unless, we assess the language we use with the children as well

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Thu

ring

er U

nive

rsity

& L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

1:23

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

as to each other during the day, all overt efforts to canbat sexisn

will be superficial, as the children will still be receiving the cover

messages portrayed in discourse. Adults could monitor each other in

the classroom and the results could be used for discussion. As a

result of this people are often very surprised at the language they are

using unintentionally, which has the result of restricting and

stereotyping the children's actions and use of the curriculum. This

can be put to constructive use to effect a change in the staff's

attitudes, and ensure a more positive anti-sexist environment.

Many schools have formed through discussion a whole school policy on

anti-sexism. In fact it is required generally within the Inner London

Education Authority. In 1987 I researched three inner London nursery

schools, all of whom had an anti-sexist policy, to discover if this in

fact made any difference to the access of girls to the curriculum areas

generally thought to be inappropriate to them. Despite the different

emphasis the policies were given in the daily routine and curriculum

planning of the three schools, girls were still playing predcminantly

in the areas which were gender appropriate, as were the boys, who

obviously monopolised the large construction area and the outdoor

space. The staff in all three schools were aware of the

ineffectiveness of the school policy and recognised that influences

more generally in the broader context of society were the major factors

in determining gender stereotyped behaviour. However, they all agreed

that alternatives must be given in schools and sane effort must be made

to give girls equal opportunities within the curriculum.

The results of my research were clear, that an anti-sexist paper policy-

can only be superficial without a great deal of discussion, monitoring

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Thu

ring

er U

nive

rsity

& L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

1:23

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and change in the culturally adopted sexist attitudes of staff. Cfily

then will children be given genuine alternatives in the classroom, to

the gender stereotypes learned outside school. We can, however,

provide anti-sexist resources and ensure that children are not

stereotyped fcy gender in early years equipment. Staff must keep

records, not only to monitor children's development but to monitor and

act to change any stereotypical behaviour which is preventing equal

opportunities of access to the curriculum areas.

As well as these aspects of the hidden curriculum, school and Education

Authorities must be aware of the cover messages transmitted by the

female as main carer for young children. There are very few men in

early years edjcation. Positive moves are being made to encourage more

men to train as nursery nurses and teachers of young children. In

addition schools can involve fathers and other men from the camnunity

in non-stereotyped roles. Whenever possible, not only should wanen in

school be involved in what are generally considered to be men's jobs,

such as mending toys, but men should be involved in reading stories,

cooking with the children, playing in the hate corner and generally

providing positive caring male images and role models for the girls as

well as the boys. Research has shown that when women play football,

etc, girls tend to join in these activities more (Fagot and Paterson,

1969). By explaining the effect of sexism in the classroan and the

implications for their children, staff can involved parents in the

curriculum as a positive part of an anti-sexist policy. Parents must

be told about the school's anti-sexist policy when their children are

first admitted. This will give plenty of opportunity to discuss sexism

and to involve the parents more generally, as well as carrying the

policy into the hccnes of the children. We must all be aware of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Thu

ring

er U

nive

rsity

& L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

1:23

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

different cultural attitudes of the parents an children in our schools

to wanen, and the implications of this. We cannot expect unanimous

acceptance of our policy. What we can expect is plenty of discussion

and an opening up of the issues and iirplications of sexism. We cannot

hope to change society which is based on the ideology of patriarchy

where the women are seen to be homeniaker, child nurturer and

subordinate to men. But by giving children equal access to the

curriculum and showing them alternatives to the gender stereotypes by

which they are surrounded, we can give them knowledge with which to

challenge their position in society and with which to attempt to

achieve equal opportunities in society generally. We can only hope

that Henri Giroux' (1983) theory that through resistance will come

change means that eventually girls will be free of the gender

stereotypes which now restrict their opportunities.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bower, T (1982), Video - 'Imagined Words' BBC

Clarricoates, K (1970), 'Dinosaurus in the Classroom' inWomen's Studies International Quarterly Vol 1 pp,353-364

Delamont, S (1980), Sex roles in the School Methuen

Donaldson et al (1985), Early Childhood Development and EducationBasil Blackwell

Fagot & Peterson (1969), 'Sex Role Behaviour in the Pre-School Child'Developmental Psychology Vol 1 No 5 pp.563-568

France & Browne (1986), Untying the Apron Strings Open University Press

Giroux, H (1983), 'Reproduction and Resistance' Harvard Review

Lees, S (1987), Losing Out - Hutchinson

Lever, J (1976), 'Sex Differences in the Games Children Play'Social Problems Vol 23

Loban, G (1975), 'Sex Roles in Reading Schemes' in Educational Review .Vol 27 Part 3 pp.202-210

McGill, L (1987), First Reflections I.L.E.A.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Thu

ring

er U

nive

rsity

& L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

1:23

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Sharpe, S (1976), Just Like a Girl Penguin

Spender, D (1982), "Inside Women, The Schooling Scandal'Writers and Readers Co-op

Tizard et al (1976), "Play in Pre-School Centres' inJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Vol 17 pp.251-264

Walker & Walkerdine (1982), "Girls and Mathematics - The Early Years'Bedford Way Papers 8

Whyld, J, Sexism in the Seoondary Curriculum - Harper & Row

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Thu

ring

er U

nive

rsity

& L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 1

1:23

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14