Committing to a queerer future in the university
Written by Alex Baird
they/them
Before moving to the Higher Educator sector seven years ago, I worked in various schools for over twelve years, latterly as Director of Sport. At the University of Bedfordshire I am a Senior Lecturer in Sport and Physical Education, an EDI Lead, and the Vice Chair of the LGBTQ+ Alliance staff network. I have just finished an EdD at UCL and the research I write about here constituted my EdD thesis.
In the process of moving from teaching in schools to lecturing in Higher Education (HE) and then embarking on a doctorate, I have been encouraged to read, reflect, and write more. I have gravitated towards my LGBTQ+ lived experiences and perspectives and I find myself increasingly motivated to carry out LGBTQ+ themed research. Being a LGBTQ+ researcher encompasses treading a different and uncertain path. In anticipating a few negative reactions to my research or worse still not being heard at all, I will attempt to speak calmly and clearly in order to bridge a connection and appeal to the shared interests that we might have between us.
LGBTQ+ leadership has often been excluded from UK HE, HE leadership research and wider leadership research, meaning leadership is narrowly understood (Lumby & Moorosi, 2022; Thomson, 2017). The individualistic, fixed, and binary conceptualisations of leadership, also enable and maintain prevailing power structures and inequalities (Ferry, 2017). For this reason, I was excited to hear about a proposed LGBTQ+ leadership development programme within the specific context and current climate of UK HE and further still when I was given access as a researcher to query leadership and leadership development.
The LGBT Leadership Development Programme I attended was delivered within one post-92 university and consisted of three formalised classroom days and individual mentorship. I had not anticipated, since I was not employed at the host university, being a participant as well as observer on programme days. However as soon as I arrived on day one, attendees drew me into the group and session activities. I tried to extend a reciprocal level of openness about my personal and professional experiences while balancing my role of observer, being interested without becoming too active. I learnt to wait a while and let other attendees ask a question before I did. I was invited to attend five further socials and three LGBTQ+ network events which brought me even closer to attendees’ lives. Attendees willingly engaged in interviews and I became aware of how their voices were entangled with other voices, the atmosphere of the programme’s queer space, their perceptions of the wider university, and their loyalty to the programme and its survival.
The energy, lightness, and freedom of the programme’s queer space produced new ways of thinking about, seeing, and enacting leadership. The community of LGBTQ+ attendees who came together (which included both academic and professional staff) facilitated intergenerational queer knowledge sharing amongst LGBTQ+ staff and offers an example of how distributed leadership and discussion works in practice. LGBTQ+ leadership was conceptualised as listening to, valuing, and developing people, and challenging inequalities by voicing an alternative perspective. A form of leadership which is relational, collective, creative, temporal, and offers some resistance to the negative pressures of neoliberalism. Enacting LGBTQ+ leadership was seen as being different (at times) from management rather than the two being interchangeable terms; attendees sheltered their team from or utilised market forces in UK HE to support inclusion and recognised that leadership did not necessarily require an authority role.
I know of three attendees who were promoted during or shortly after attending the programme however this overlooks the longitudinal, curvilinear, and wider outcomes for both attendees (mental wellbeing, career satisfaction, and career direction) and the organisation (development and retention of diverse talent). Instead of assimilating or conforming to normative versions of leadership, LGBTQ+ lives were attached to leadership with growing pride and joy. Crucially, though, the attendees in this queer space reflected upon and redefined the meaning given to authenticity (Fine, 2017), which was viewed by some attendees as beyond an ‘outness’ (recognising the nuances involved in this act), rather knowing oneself (an ongoing process) and embracing this. Whilst Authentic Leadership Theory (Avolio et al., 2004) fails to consider the complexities of relational and contextual factors, the attachment of this concept to the LGBTQ+ leadership development programme offered personal benefits to LGBTQ+ attendees’ wellbeing and leadership potential (Fletcher et al., 2024) and encouraged qualities in their leadership, which have been identified as being essential to UK HE (Spendlove, 2007; Bryman & Lilley, 2009).
The programme and LGBTQ+ mentorship readdressed feelings of powerlessness in the wider university, and nurtured and developed LGBTQ+ staff talent (and the university’s emerging leadership). This included mentors offering support when mentees applied for specific jobs during the programme’s duration and mentors explaining pathways for academic staff (which for some had been previously obstructed); clarifying the university’s systems and structures; and advising mentees to network with colleagues within HE. Attendees gained confidence to walk their own paths and voice alternative viewpoints. Attendees also spoke about the ‘softer’ merits of the programme, for example friendships continuing to blossom. Attendees viewed leadership development as a continual process of learning from and reflecting upon their leadership and life experience. It was also noted that progression was not always available, nor should it be the only aspiration, given the risk and limitation involved.
In sharing these findings to stimulate future versions of LGBTQ+ leadership development programmes I have been asked why a LGBTQ+ leadership development programme should be prioritised over other protected minority groups. I am not suggesting that LGBTQ+ staff have a superior need to others rather that this research indicates there is a value to leadership development programmes which have a specific focus and membership. However a LGBTQ+ leadership development programme would be particularly meaningful at this moment in time, when LGBTQ+ staff and students may be feeling less safe given the backdrop of a ‘culture war’ in the UK and a global ‘moral panic’ surrounding trans people. HE should be at the forefront of leading the way to positive societal change. I hope my research makes a valuable contribution to guiding future LGBTQ+ leadership development programmes and their accompanying research.
References
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F. & May, D. R. (2004) ‘Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors.’ The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801-823.
Bryman, A. & Lilley, S. (2009) ‘Leadership Researchers on Leadership in Higher Education.’ Leadership, 5(3), 331-346.
Ferry, N. C. (2018) ‘It’s a family business!: Leadership tests as technologies of heteronormativity.’ Leadership, 14(6), 603-621.
Fine, L. E. (2017) ‘Gender and Sexual Minorities’ Practice and Embodiment of Authentic Leadership: Challenges and Opportunities.’ Advances in Developing Human Resources, 19(4), 378–392.
Fletcher, L., Pichler, S. & Chandrasekaran, L. (2024) ‘Songs of the self: the importance of authentic leadership and core self-evaluations for LGBT managers.’ Journal of Managerial Psychology, 39(2), 131-145.
Lumby, J. & Moorosi, P. (2022) ‘Leadership for equality in education: 50 years marching forward or marching on the spot?’ Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(2), 233-251.
Spendlove, M. (2007) ‘Competencies for Effective Leadership in Higher Education.’ International Journal of Educational Management, 21(5), 407–417.
Thomson, P. (2017) ‘A little more madness in our methods? A snapshot of how the educational leadership, management and administration field conducts research.’ Journal of Educational Administration and History, 49(3), 215-230.
Understanding Staff Wellbeing in Academies: A Mid-Year Review
Written by Iona Jackson
Iona leads on turning Edurio’s national datasets into useful and impactful insights for trust and school leaders. Iona has worked on national reports focused on topics such as equality, diversity and inclusion, staff retention and pupil experience and wellbeing. She works closely with education leaders and industry experts to understand what the current position means for the sector, and where to go from here.
In the education sector, the wellbeing of staff is a critical issue that impacts not only the individuals involved but also the quality of education provided to pupils. Recent data from the Edurio 2023/2024 mid-year report of Staff Wellbeing in English Academies sheds light on the diverse experiences of educators and other school staff, highlighting significant variations in wellbeing across different roles and protected characteristics.
Overall Wellbeing Insights
The report reveals that less than 40% of staff feel very or quite well, with over a quarter reporting poor wellbeing. Additionally, while around a third of staff report sleeping well, almost half feel stressed and overworked. Despite these challenges, the majority of staff often feel excited about their work, showcasing a dedication to their roles despite the pressures they face.
Role-Based Wellbeing Differences
Wellbeing varies significantly by role within the school environment. Teachers, for example, report the lowest levels of wellbeing across almost all measures, including sleep quality and stress levels. Leadership roles, while also experiencing high levels of stress and workload, report better overall wellbeing compared to other roles.
Protected Characteristics and Wellbeing
Examining wellbeing through the lens of protected characteristics reveals notable disparities. Age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability, and parenthood all influence wellbeing in distinct ways.
Age: Younger staff, particularly those aged 25-34, report the lowest levels of wellbeing, highest stress, and poorest sleep quality. In contrast, older staff, particularly those aged 65-74, report better overall wellbeing and less stress.
Gender: Male respondents generally report higher wellbeing compared to female respondents. However, those identifying with another gender identity, although a small group, report significantly worse wellbeing across all measures.
Sexual Orientation: Heterosexual staff report slightly more positive wellbeing outcomes than their LGB+ counterparts. Stress levels are notably higher among LGB+ staff, reflecting the unique challenges they face in balancing personal and professional identities in often unsupportive environments. As contributors Jo Brassington and Adam Brett from Pride and Progress noted, “The stress that LGBT+ teachers experience speaks to the need for LGBT+ teachers, and teachers from minority backgrounds, to receive mandatory training and support as part of ITE programmes and throughout their careers.”
Ethnicity: The relationship between ethnicity and wellbeing is complex, with no clear trend emerging. However, it is noteworthy that White British staff are the least likely to feel excited by their work. The commentary from Black Men Teach highlights, “While there are variations across ethnic groups, the disparities are not always stark and consistent. This aligns with broader discussions on intersectionality, recognising that individuals may experience unique challenges based on the intersection of various identities, such as race, gender, and socio-economic status.”
Disability: Disabled staff report significantly lower wellbeing across all measures, with issues like poor sleep quality and high stress levels being particularly pronounced. Catrina Lowri from Neuroteachers emphasises that creating a sense of belonging and celebrating disability can have a substantial positive impact on staff wellbeing. “Where schools are trying to improve situations for disabled staff the most successful organisations are those which create a sense of belonging, not only for disabled staff but for those with protected characteristics as a whole.”
Parenthood: Staff who are parents generally report higher overall wellbeing, lower stress, and a greater sense of excitement about their work compared to non-parents. However, they do report slightly lower sleep quality. The reflections from Maternity Teacher Paternity Teacher underscore the importance of understanding the unique experiences of parent-teachers to better support their wellbeing, “More information is needed to understand the experiences of parent-teachers. The age of their children, for example, is likely to play a part in their sense of wellbeing, particularly the impact of their sleep on their stress levels, resilience and ability to cope with their workloads.”
Recommendations for Improving Wellbeing
The report concludes with several recommendations aimed at enhancing staff wellbeing, including taking more intersectional approaches to understand wellbeing disparities more comprehensively, providing cultural competency training, establishing mentorship and support networks for staff from minority backgrounds, advocating for more equitable policies and wellness programs tailored to the unique needs of diverse staff, and fostering partnerships with community organisations to strengthen support for staff.
Hannah Wilson, Director of Diverse Educators, contributes to the conclusion of the report, inviting readers to reflect on their practices:
- Do we know how many trans and non-binary staff that we have in our organisation? How is their MHWB and what can we do to support this group who are very vulnerable in the current climate?
- Do we know how many LGBT+ staff that we have in our organisation? Is there a difference in the MHWB of a gay man to a lesbian woman, and how does this differ if they are also a person of colour or a person of faith?
- Do we know how many disabled staff/ staff with a disability that we have in our organisation? How are different staff disabilities and access/ inclusion needs supported in an intentional and a proactive way?
By recognising and addressing the diverse needs of staff, schools can create a more inclusive and supportive environment that promotes the wellbeing of all educators, ultimately benefiting the entire educational community.
For more information:
The 2024 Staff Wellbeing in Academies report reveals important contrasts in the wellbeing of different groups of staff working in England’s schools and features expert commentary from Black Men Teach, Diverse Educators, Maternity Teacher Paternity Teacher, Neuroteachers, Pride and Progress and Sufian Sadiq.
Edurio is England’s leading provider of staff, pupil, and parent feedback surveys for schools and multi-academy trusts. So far, our school surveys have supported over 750,000 pupils, parents and school staff. Edurio’s platform and nationwide dataset allow trust and school leaders to benchmark their performance against national averages on topics like staff wellbeing, retention and EDI, parental engagement, pupil wellbeing and others. By measuring the often difficult-to-track elements of education quality, Edurio can help school leaders make informed decisions, develop engaging relationships with staff and communicate their values to their community.
A Class Apart
Written by Dr Teresa Crew
Dr Teresa Crew SFHEA is a Senior Lecturer in Social Policy with research interests relating to various social inequalities. More specifically Dr Crew's research explores the barriers faced by working class people in education. She is the author of the book "Higher Education and Working Class Academics: Precarity and Diversity in Academia" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020) which examined the experiences of working class academics. Her second book, “The Intersections of a Working Class Academic Identity. A Class Apart”, will be published by Emerald in July 2024.
The echo of footsteps resonating through university hallways often carries with it a narrative of unearned advantage. This is in stark contrast to the uphill climb some have faced just to set foot on these grounds. For many working class academics (WCAs) like myself, each step reflects complex feelings of taking pride in rising above class constraints combined with a persistent sense of unease that we do not fully belong within these elite spaces. Far from being unique, this reveals that despite loud diversity rhetoric, quiet biases continue obstructing the WCA experience.
My extensive research incorporating over 250 interviews and surveys WCAs across the UK over the past 5 years reveals systemic barriers continue to make academia an inhospitable environment for many scholars from disadvantaged backgrounds. Nearly 75% faced ingrained classism subtly woven through campus culture via small slights eroding confidence in belonging. These obstacles are likely deterring talented potential working class scholars from pursuing academic careers.
Classist microaggressions served as the ever present undercurrent with manifestations ranging from derogatory comments questioning their credentials and mocking regional accents. Women endured layered inequities – both gender and class biases. Unpaid service tasks consumed valuable time otherwise dedicated to scholarly writing necessary for advancement, reflecting embedded biases limiting their mobility. Ethnic minority WCAs encountered underrepresentation and racialised stereotypes that questioned their intellectual capacity, coupled with the assumption that their presence was simply a result of diversity initiatives rather than merit.
My research also exposed profound institutional fractures at the intersection of class and disability. Participants recounted struggles to obtain reasonable adjustments. This disregard for individual needs was particularly harmful for those reliant on precarious incomes, as the absence of family wealth amplifies their vulnerability.
Our lived experiences offer a crucial counterpoint highlighting how WCAs display remarkable resilience, strong “aspirational capital” and determination. WCAs typically serve as mentors, role models, and support systems for many marginalised students. We offer innovative teaching methods and curricular interventions aimed at uplifting excluded voices and dismantling entrenched hierarchies. These interventions, informed by lived experiences at the margins, adds unique depth and insight to WCA scholarship, making us invaluable assets that enrich the tapestry of academic discourse.
Despite our remarkable resilience and talent, WCAs often find their potential curtailed rather than nurtured. Hiring discrimination, promotion bias, and precarious employment create significant hurdles, constructing invisible yet potent barriers to curtail our career advancement. Overburdened workloads and the absence of tailored support networks further exacerbate these challenges, creating a “chilly climate” within academia that often discourages many WCAs from reaching their full potential.
We must actively dismantle these barriers by challenging entrenched structures and disrupting the harmful effects of classist practices that erode individual aspirations and stifle working class potential. This demands bold, systemic change.
Key areas of action include:
- #MakeIt10. To create real equal opportunities, we must end unfair treatment based on an individual’s social class background and add social class as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010
- WCAs need stable employment with living wages, enforceable rights, and consistent hours.
- Targeted career development programmes and mentoring specifically for WCAs.
These strategic interventions, informed by the powerful narratives of WCAs navigating the system, hold the key to unlocking the transformative potential of an inclusive academia. Only then can we ensure that knowledge and empowerment reach all corners of society, shaping a future where the collective brilliance of diverse minds, regardless of background, can truly flourish.
Observations on the implementation of Relationships, Sex, and Health Education (RSE) in an English Primary School
Written by Alex Baird
they/them
Before moving to the Higher Educator sector seven years ago, I worked in various schools for over twelve years, latterly as Director of Sport. At the University of Bedfordshire I am a Senior Lecturer in Sport and Physical Education, an EDI Lead, and the Vice Chair of the LGBTQ+ Alliance staff network. I have just finished an EdD at UCL and the research I write about here constituted my EdD thesis.
My research took place in a primary school in Greater London during the summer term of 2021, just as Relationships and Health Education (including the new LGBT content) had become mandatory. At this time, Covid-19 restrictions were lessening though some protocols were still in place and the effect of lockdowns on both pupils and staff was evident. The school has no religious affiliation but the majority of pupils are Muslim, with a high proportion of English as an additional language (EAL) learners and higher than (the national) average of pupils receiving free school meals (FSM). The research was designed to appreciate how teachers feel positioned and work alongside them to create and teach an inclusive and effective RSE curriculum. Participants included five (non-LGBT identifying) females from the school who held a range of positions, roles, and experience but had all previously taught RSE and were currently teaching in Key Stage 2. Participants were asked to reflect upon RSE and the school culture via semi-structured online interviews. RSE lessons and other subject lessons were observed. Teachers’ reflections of lessons were gathered after observation through an informal discussion.
In interviews teachers expressed a commitment to a rights-based approach in RSE and highlighted the value lessons offered to facilitate dialogue with pupils. Lesson observations revealed a cautious approach to the age at which certain topics (e.g. puberty and conception) were covered and when these topics were covered, dialogue did not deviate from the purchased curriculum PowerPoint slides. The culture and routines of RSE lessons closely resembled other subject lessons observed, that is pupils engaged and valuing the subject, generally sitting in their allocated class seats but the authority and attention remaining on the teacher at the front of the class. Teachers wanted to offer fixed, clear and definitive truths, reinforcing good behaviour and deeming some pupils’ questions as inappropriate. Teachers remained uncertain about what personal opinions they could express whilst still adhering to professional conduct. Lessons which were only 45 minutes in length, shorter than Mathematics and English lessons observed, left teachers often hurrying the pace to try to cover the content. Lesson observations highlighted that gender norms are still being powerfully reinforced including the use of gender stereotypes in scenarios and segregated sex education lessons which send these messages overtly and covertly to pupils.
In light of the current heated and polarising debates surrounding LGBT lives in the UK, I would like to stress my call to rethink how RSE is taught should not be taken to mean it should not be taught. A fuller range of pedagogical approaches that include a critical and postmodern orientation are required to recognise pupils’ agency, their pre-existing knowledge, their emotions, and to the likely presence of pupils in LGBT families and pupils who are or may come to identify as LGBT. Effective RSE remains dependent upon schools providing sufficient training for staff, listening to pupils, and communicating effectively with all parents/carers to address misconceptions or issues. Actualising and normalising LGBT themes needs to go beyond merely a bullying discourse to seek to critique broader school culture and practices.
A portrait of the teaching of the British Empire, migration and belonging in English secondary schools
Written by Dr Jason Todd
Jason is a Departmental Lecturer at the Department of Education at the University of Oxford and currently leads the PGCE History programme. Before joining the University of Oxford, he taught history for 19 years in various London state schools, including time as an Assistant Headteacher in a Special Needs school.
I am working on a research project aiming to provide an empirical portrait of current teaching and learning around the interconnected themes of empire, migration and belonging in England’s secondary schools. This project’s aim is a simple one: to support teachers with the teaching of the British Empire, migration and belonging.
Histories of empire and migration are fundamental to understanding modern Britain including how we make sense of issues of belonging and identity. Recent events, from Brexit in 2016, to the Windrush Scandal in 2018 and the Black Lives Matter activism of 2020, have drawn attention to the interplay between the past and the present in dramatic ways, highlighting not only the salience of these histories but also their contested nature.
Despite its importance, there is a shared acknowledgement at the heart not only of recent campaigns from organisations such as the Runnymede Trust and Black Curriculum Project but also emphasised within the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report, that there is currently no credible, comprehensive evidence base from which to reliably judge the extent to which today’s secondary students are being taught about the history and legacies of the British empire at all, let alone what they are being taught, in what manner and why. There is however evidence that teachers themselves have identified the need for targeted professional development support and training in this area.
It is precisely in response to this demand that I, as lead author of a letter to the Times in 2020, reiterated the TIDE-Runnymede recommendation that the government invests in better supporting teachers to confidently tackle these complex and potentially contentious themes. Both the Times letter and TIDE-Runnymede campaign made explicit reference to work from the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education’s internationally renowned and distinctively research-led approach to transformative teacher professional development. The Portrait of the teaching of the British Empire, migration and belonging research project was thus conceived as a crucially important intervention towards ultimately supporting teachers by first providing a much needed, robust and comprehensive, empirical evidence base. Our survey is one tool we are using to examine issues associated with teaching the British Empire, migration and belonging in schools and we encourage teachers of all subjects to complete it. https://redcap.idhs.ucl.ac.uk/surveys/?s=L33D9YEX7KRET3EX
We think that this project represents a tremendous opportunity to understand and shape the way young people engage with the enduring legacies, and ongoing debates, regarding the British Empire. Given the complexity of the topics, and the contested nature of many current debates, our desire is to offer nuance and illumination.
You can find out more about this project on our website https://portraitemb.co.uk/
These potent legacies shape the lives of millions, deeply affecting our sense of identity and belonging. It is critical that we forge paths towards better collective understanding of these subjects, however controversial. Confident and informed teachers are, of course, central to this.
Jason Todd is Co-Lead Investigator on a collaborative research project “A portrait of the teaching of the British Empire, migration and belonging in English secondary schools.” which brings together scholars from IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society and the University of Oxford’s Department of Education.
A Curriculum That Empowers Young People in Care
Written by Anu Roy
Anu is a TeachFirst leadership Alumni and digital trustee and teacher committee lead for charities in England and Scotland. She is currently a digital curriculum development manager and works in inclusive education projects incorporating tech.
This year is the first time I have developed and designed curriculum models for young people in the care system. Although students I have taught in previous roles come from a range of backgrounds, this role is the first time I have looked at curriculum specifically through the lens of an education that often forgets the difficulties faced by care experienced young people.
Out of nearly 12 million children living in England, just over 400,000 are in the social care system at any one time. They face a lot of disruption in their learning journey due to personal circumstances, financial difficulties and challenging home circumstances. This means in comparison to their peers, care experienced young people fall behind in most education and health outcome indicators.
Working with a team of educators, social workers, web developers and UX/UI designers, these are the ways we believe curriculum development can help experienced young people thrive:
- Introduce context alongside technical concepts: technical concepts across all subjects can be difficult for CEYP to master in a short space of time so contextual information wedged on either side of a technical explanation will enable their understanding and grasp to learn and embed the technicality in their wider learning framework.
- Champion peer learning– CEYP could have challenging interactions with direct instruction if it reminds them of unpleasant previous instructor situations therefore activities that use peer learning not only lowers the stakes for them to develop their self confidence and interactivity in a lesson but encourages building friendships within the classroom while learning key concepts together.
- Open ended ethos– instructors and teachers should veer away from specifying the outcome of a learning topic as ‘to achieve grade _’- instead the learning objectives should first be anchored to exploring the curiosity around the topic with prompts such as ‘what would happen if____?’ or ‘what could we learn if we explored how___’. Academic pressure to perform instantly can feel overwhelming for CEYP. While they should not be met with lowered expectations, instead the reframing helps to welcome them to first explore before learning the topic and moving on to an evaluative stage where they gain more agency.
- Knowledge connection outside the classroom-Learning feels more relevant for CEYP when they are introduced to topics through the lens of real world use. Introducing a curriculum through a skills development framework linked to increased employment motivates them to understand the use of each topic, further strengthened by real world examples, work based scenarios and soft skill demonstrations. It helps them bridge the transition from education to active skill application and any learning based curriculum should also have opportunities through project work for practical applications related to public speaking, project management, team building and problem solving for CEYP to gain experience in these areas.
Many educators are unaware of the students in their classrooms who come from a care experienced background. While this should not be the only aspect of their identity to focus on, a student centered approach to relationship building alongside these curriculum findings should enable educators to build strong relationships by understanding the story and journey many of their students have taken to make it to the classroom and learn each day. Aimed with this knowledge and bespoke approach, schools and their wider communities can foster a sense of belonging for care experienced young people, something they have been denied of for too long.
The Misuse of Gender
Written by Katy Carpenter
Katy is a Pastoral Lead and EDI Lead in a Birmingham primary school. She is currently studying for her PhD in Education, researching how children explore and negotiate gender through creative writing.
Graham et al (2017) wrote that gender is typically constructed within a binary of two natural biological entities – man and woman. As such, it is very easy to conclude that gender is inherently linked to one’s sex. Even a modern understanding of gender as a social construction and a form of expression finds itself difficult to detach itself, semantically, and conceptually, from one’s being male or female. The language around gender remains restricted to a range of words pertaining to masculinity and femininity, a binary mode of thinking which reduces our positioning of people who deviate from the gender norm as either masculine women or feminine men. It seems that without this binary, we would find it very difficult to understand gender-diverse people.
How have we gotten here, why is this the case, and need it be? Our historical, social and cultural norms have made it so that gender appears to be indistinguishably linked to sex, and historically, sex and gender have been treated as synonymous in law and culture (Case, 1995). Even contemporary culture continues to conflate sex and gender. On an application form I will often be asked to identify my gender, and drop-down options usually are a choice of male, female, non-binary, or prefer not to say. Now if what HR wanted to know was how I express myself, they could change these options to masculine, feminine (due to where we are in history these terms are still helpful in denoting a style or aesthetic), non-binary, prefer not to say, and in addition they might even add a few other options like flamboyant, assertive, glamorous. Of course, this would be limitless and unmanageable. It also wouldn’t be very useful to HR because when this question is being asked, what they actually want to know is my sex assigned at birth, or indeed, whether I don’t find this label relevant to my ability to do the job, in which case I might opt for non-binary or even the as question-raising option, prefer not to say.
The conflation of sex and gender is problematic. When we use the terms interchangeably, people end up confused. I treat gender as a social construct, historically derivative of the male/ female sex binary but actually conceptually distinct from it. A popular view of gender is one of whether you’re male (a biological occurrence), female (a biological occurrence), or reject those biological categories (a social occurrence). The drop-down boxes on application forms suggest that this is also an institutional view of gender. However, an important distinction between sex (meaning one’s sex assigned at birth) and gender (meaning one’s expression- which has both personal and political motivations) needs to be upheld, else we need not have two terms at all. A semantic and thus conceptual conflation of sex and gender subsequently leads to a confusion of the debate around matters pertaining to gender. Indeed, one of the outcomes of this conflation is that when I talk about gender with my friends and colleagues, I am taken to be discussing transgender matters. Channel 4’s Gender Wars, which aired earlier this summer, looked promising in bringing discussion about gender to a wider audience than academics and people leading EDI work, however in focusing on the debate around the trans community, it unfortunately upheld the impression that all debates around gender are debates around trans issues. The gender discussion is much wider than this, and there is a difference between the matter of being transgender and the critical questioning of the boundaries of gender presentation.
In relying on a binary between masculinity and femininity when developing a framework for conceptualising gender, even those who accept and embrace gender fluidity are restricted to this idea of two ends of a linear spectrum and everything else in-between. I suggest a different way of picturing gender (because let’s face it, things that come with a picture are always easier to understand). I suggest an egg, where male, female and intersex people reside centrally in the yolk, and the white circle around the outside is the space of gender – how one expresses oneself. By removing the image of the line, one form of gender presentation is no nearer to or further from any one sex than it is another, and thus releases itself from the binary of masculine and feminine forms of presentation.
In her 1990 book Gender Trouble, Judith Butler controversially questioned the category of woman. This was contentious because it destabilised ‘woman’ as a protected and distinguished category, with fundamental difference to men, something centuries of feminist work unwittingly embedded. This idea set ablaze the acknowledging of gender (in a feminist context, the doing of womanhood) as a process of construction – gender as a doing rather than a being, separate from sex. This was called gender performativity. With this different understanding came the possibility of a critical evolution around identity and performance. There is much yet to be explored.
References
Butler, J (1990) Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, New York.
Case, M. A., (1995) Disaggregating gender from sex and sexual orientation: The effeminate man in the law and feminist jurisprudence. Yale Law Journal, pp.1-105.
Channel 4 (2023) Gender Wars. Available here: https://www.channel4.com/programmes/gender-wars
Graham, K., Treharne, G.J. and Nairn, K. (2017) Using Foucault’s theory of disciplinary power to critically examine the construction of gender in secondary schools. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(2).
An Exploration of the Persisting Legacy of Imperial Rhetoric in Modern Education through a Case Study on ‘Eugenics, Race, and Psychiatry in the Cape Colony, 1890-1908: Dr Thomas Duncan Greenlees’
Written by Rosa Legeno-Bell
Rosa is co-founder and Director of Diverse History UK (DHUK); an LGBTQ+ and female-owned business. DHUK provides educational consultancy to address diversification of educational curricula. Rosa has worked in the education sector for over a decade, mainly in inner-city London comprehensives; as a History Teacher, Head of History and Associate Assistant Principal. Rosa graduated with distinction from the University of East Anglia with a Master’s Degree in Modern History.
This blog examines imperial rhetoric around race and eugenics through a case study of colonial psychiatrist Dr Duncan T Greenlees and explores how the legacy of imperialism lives on in the education sector.
Greenlees was the medical superintendent of Grahamstown Asylum in the Cape Colony from 1890–1907, regarded by his peers as an authority on race and eugenics (T. Duncan Greenlees M.D., 1930).
Greenlees’ Theories on the Native Mind
‘[African natives’]… wants are simple and their habits primitive; they are… willing servants, and naturally look up to white people…’ (Greenlees, 1882)
Greenlees maintained that biological and cultural differences between Africans and Europeans explained native mindsets. He attributed native ‘insanity’ to the exposure of ‘savage’ minds to Western civilisation (Swartz, 1995). The myth of primitive natives was key to the justification of British paternalism in the colonies as well as the confinement of natives who refused to conform to their prescribed roles in colonial society (Summers, 2010). In A Statistical Contribution to the Pathology of Insanity (1902), Greenlees declared that:
‘…[if] brought under the artificial influences of civilisation…[the native] …is particularly liable to chest troubles.’
And also claimed:
‘While mania is considered a disease of undeveloped [native] brains, melancholia may be regarded as one of developed [European] brains’
(Greenlees 1902, p. 12).
The falsity that non-whites were incapable of melancholia was supported by later colonial psychiatrists and is still echoed in practice today (Rosenberg, 2019). Greenlees also appealed to the common myth of the unhygienic native, stating they are ‘extremely filthy in habits,’ (Greenlees, 1902. p. 17) a stereotype commonly used to underpin dehumanising imperial rhetoric.
The influence on Greenlees of Victorian hegemony, such as Darwin’s theory of natural selection, is discernible. Darwin’s theory was commonly misapplied by imperialists to claim racial superiority and, under the guise of Social Darwinism, to justify imperial actions (Dafler, 2005). In Insanity Among the Natives of South Africa Greenlees warns:
‘The time will soon come when civilisation will overshadow [native tribes] with its baneful pall, bringing innumerable diseases in its train and ultimately exterminating all races that oppose its progress.’
(Greenlees, 1895, p. 75)
Greenlees’ Principles of Eugenics
‘…how much suffering might be avoided if…men were allowed to exercise the same care in the selection of their mates as they do when breeding their cattle’
(Greenlees, 1892, p. 302).
During the Nineteenth Century, white-working class British people were also dehumanised and infantalised by the British state. The white working classes were integral to imperial rule as they powered the industrial revolution on home soil through cheap labour and terrible working conditions.
Greenlees worked in the Cape Colony after the emancipation of Transatlantic slaves and during the Second Boer War (Facing History and Ourselves, 2018). At this time, it was believed that many South African whites, particularly Afrikaans, were becoming less civilised, mirroring British stereotypes of native peoples (Klausen, 1997). For Greenlees it was paramount that the white race maintained an air of supremacy. (Burdett, 2014), He argued that the breeding of ‘lunatics,’ ‘imbeciles’ and ‘drunks,’ constituted a grave threat to imperial rule (Klausen, 1997).
Greenlees’ also theorised about ‘coloured’ (mixed-raced) people, referring to them as ‘the bastard.’ Highlighting his fears regarding race and degeneracy, he contended:
‘a mixture of white and black blood… seems to present the worst characteristics of both races.’ (Greenlees,1892, p. 71)
Greenlees opined that, mixed-race communities were degenerates and threatened British dominance (Kolsky, 2013), a view mirrored by segregationists in the southern states of America around the same time.
So, Greenlees advocated for people to make genetically ‘wise’ choices over their marriage partners and proclaimed that it is:
‘…absurd… that we should devote more…consideration to the mating of our horses and pigs than we do that of our sons and daughters’ (Greenlees, 1903, p. 11).
The Impact of Colonial Rhetoric around race and class on the Current Education System
‘… decolonising and detoxifying the education regime are a sine qua non for… academics, especially those who are cognisant of the true meaning of education.’
(Nkwazi Nkuzi Mhango, 2018)
Elhinnawy (2022) maintains that a diverse book collection does not suffice and that educators need to honestly explore their own internal prejudices and their origins. While Bentrovato (2018) contends that colonialism is a ‘hallmark of modern world history.’ whose legacies survive because of modern institutions such as education.
But, decolonisation has been controversial. Seemingly concerned, The Department for Education (2022), introduced a guidance on impartiality in schools in 2022 on the back of the growing call to decolonise education.But decolonisation is possible still, as the guidance does not include any additional statutory requirements, and there is still room to decolonise if a range of historical evidence is engaged with and views are not taught as objective fact. The dichotomy between a government and its institutions can cause friction. Leading governmental leadership posts are filled disproportionately by privately educated people (predominantly white and male) who attended Oxbridge colleges. In 2019, 57% of the government’s cabinet and 36% of those who work in the media had attended an Oxbridge university (The Sutton Trust, 2019). Notably, private schools and Oxbridge universities were avid mouthpieces for colonial rhetoric.
Despite the controversy over decolonisation, it is a no-brainer. As diversity increases, decolonisation becomes more urgent –with 43% of young Black people saying that:
‘A lack of curriculum diversity was one of the biggest barriers to…achieving in schools,’(Anna Freud, 2021).
Yet many schools still pursue whitewashed curricula and old-fashioned pedagogies. Critics of decolonisation have argued against it on the basis that we should not eradicate history, but true decolonisation does not entail deleting history, it encourages adding to existing narratives and amplifying historically silenced voices. Another criticism is that decolonisation only considers marginalised black voices, but that is too literal an understanding. Decolonisation believes in amplifying all marginalised voices such as the white working classes who too were downtrodden and exploited for the empire. One compelling reason for decolonisation is that the amplification of many voices and celebration of shared histories may also repair relationships between marginalised communities, too often pitted against each other.
Greenlees provides a significant insight into the ideologies that propped up the British empire, and serve as a shocking reminder of the philosophies on which modern Britain was founded. If educators work together to build a fairer education for our students, then we are playing a part in creating a kinder and more compassionate society for our students and our children.
Read more and find the references here:
Teach First and diversity in the teaching workforce
Written by Jenny Griffiths
Jenny is Teach First’s Research and Knowledge Manager. She is an expert in research related to teacher development and educational inequality, with a particular interest in understanding teacher retention. Prior to working at Teach First, Jenny achieved a BA (Hons) and MPhil from the University of Cambridge, and an MSc from Birkbeck, University of London. She taught History and Sociology and was a Head of Department in London schools for nearly a decade.
The proportion of postgraduate trainees reporting their ethnic group as belonging to an ethnic minority, has increased from 14% in 2015/16 to 22% in 2022/23 (UK Government, 2023). This is similar to the diversity of the working age population (21.8%) (UK Government, 2023). However, research by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) shows that 60% of schools in England have no teachers from ethnic backgrounds other than white, and pupils – 35.7% of whom are from a minority ethnic background – are less likely to encounter teachers from black, mixed or other ethnic backgrounds (NFER, 2022). In fact, a significant number of the pupils in of schools will have no experience of a Black teacher throughout their time in school (Tereshchenko, Mills & Bradbury, 2020). We believe that this lack of representation, particularly in STEM (science, technology, engineering, maths) subjects, may make it harder for young Black pupils to engage with these subjects and pursue related careers.
Over the past 20 years Teach First have screened approximately 120,000 applications and assessed over 50,000 candidates for a place on our training programme. We are committed to increasing diversity in the teaching workforce and we’ve learnt a lot about how to root out bias in our application and assessment process, but we are committed to continuing to learn and improve.
As part of that work, along with Ambition Institute, we supported the NFER to carry out research looking at racial equality in the teacher workforce. This research showed that the most significant ethnic disparities are seen at the early stages of teacher’s careers, starting with ethnic minority people being over-represented among teaching applicants, but having a lower acceptance rate compared to other groups. We are pleased that Teach First are the only ITT provider where an ethnic minority group, those of mixed ethnicity backgrounds, has the highest acceptance rates. We also have less disparity in acceptance rates between ethnic groups than other providers, but we are continuing to work to reduce this gap still further (NFER, 2022).
Our recruitment strategy is designed to identify potential and reduce the risk of bias in our decisions, first by removing personal details in applications. The most significant change however was the introduction of contextual recruitment at the application stage. This allows us to take greater account of the different backgrounds of applicants in order to attempt to offset the impact of socioeconomic disadvantage. Applicants complete a short survey about the type of school they attended, whether they were eligible for free school meals, socioeconomic background and any significant disruption such as time in care, refugee status, or being a young carer. Whilst applicants must demonstrate clear evidence of our competencies, this screening helps us to understand where grades that are lower than our traditional entry level requirements are not necessarily reflective of potential. This approach has led to a 15% increase in offers to join the training programme overall and Black, Asian and Ethnic minority representation increase from 12% in 2017, to 18% in 2018 (after the introduction of contextual recruitment), and to 22% in 2019 with changes to our selection day processes.
This improvement notwithstanding, we know there remain particular challenges in attracting Black and other underrepresented groups into teaching, especially in STEM subjects. To address this we are working in partnership with Mission 44 to recruit and train Black STEM teachers to work in schools serving disadvantaged communities in England. Our initial research specifically looked at how to attract more STEM graduates from Black and mixed Black ethnic backgrounds into the teaching profession. Motivation to enter teaching varies individually, but also differs between social groups. A discrete choice experiment enabled us to test elements of our programme where we felt changes might have the biggest impact on recruitment.
What we found was that Black and mixed Black STEM graduates saw salary as being of high importance. We also found that location mattered: respondents indicated a clear preference for a guaranteed placement in London or within 60 minutes of their home address. Perhaps more interesting in terms of understanding changing work and lifestyle priorities, was the interest in lifestyle benefits, such as restaurant or gym discounts, as being likely to motivate more graduates to apply. Focus groups elaborated on some of these responses, indicating the importance of financial and societal pressures in decision making. In teaching where starting salaries are perceived to be relatively low, the importance of career progression was clear. Another finding central to our understanding and future work, was the concern of Black graduates about the level of diversity and inclusion in the schools where they would be working. There was a wariness of being in a school with an exclusively White teaching workforce, and despite clear desire to be a positive role model, these concerns posed a perceived risk to their wellbeing which needs to be addressed if we want to address ethnic inequalities in the teacher workforce in a sustainable manner.
You can download our report on this work to read the findings from the research in full and the recommendations proposed.
Despite some gains, we know that disparity remains and we remain committed to reviewing, re-evaluating and improving our practices to support diversity and inclusion in our education system, for teachers, schools and pupils.
How Well Do You Know Your Governance Professionals?
On International Women’s Day (8 March) 2023, GovernorHub, part of The Key Group, released a research report delving into the salaries and working patterns of 1,298 governance professionals working in schools and trusts.
It sheds light on the often-hidden roles of governance professionals, who this research reveals are indeed predominantly female, and explores how their salaries fare against those in comparable roles in other sectors.
See the key findings of the report below, and some recommended actions to help overcome pay disparities to support the recruitment and retention of talent in these important roles.
Key findings
The survey of 1,055 clerks, 100 governance co-ordinators and 143 governance leads found that:
- Around 90% of governance professional roles in schools and trusts are filled by women, making this one of the most female-dominated careers in the education sector and beyond
- The majority (85%) of clerks surveyed reported working part time – for governance co-ordinators it’s 49%, and for governance leads it’s 37% – which is far higher than the government’s national employment data at 23% of working-age people working part time in 2021
- Almost a third (30%) of all female governance professionals surveyed reported having taken a career break due to caring responsibilities, compared to 4% of male respondents
- Clerking roles in schools and trusts appear to have the largest salary discrepancies, with a median salary of £25,000 pro-rata, which is substantially lower than the median salary for equivalent roles in the local government (£33,782), public services (£33,636), and not-for-profit (£31,620) sectors
- Over half (54%) of clerks surveyed reported feeling ‘underpaid’ or ‘extremely underpaid’; comments from some respondents suggest this is often caused by needing to work more hours than are allocated to each task or meeting
- A lack of visibility and understanding of clerking roles, combined with their increasing complexity, might be contributing to the stagnation of pay felt by many clerks surveyed
A quote from one part time clerk respondent illustrates a lack of awareness, in some cases, of this role:
“Having worked for 10 years with the school, I had to ask for my salary to be reviewed a couple of years ago and the rate was upped. I checked my letter of appointment and it said my salary would be reviewed every year – I pointed this out, but it isn’t reviewed every year. I think my role falls through the cracks. As a part time employee, I don’t know if I am missing out on any other work benefits, pension etc., and whether I’m entitled to equipment to help me to do my job.”
Recommendations
To help improve working conditions for governance professionals and, in doing so, help recruit and retain valuable talent for the sector:
- Employers – should use annual appraisal meetings as an opportunity to review and benchmark pay, and follow government guidance on reducing your organisation’s gender pay gap
- Self-employed individuals – should negotiate hourly rates in line with benchmarked salaries, as well as hours assigned to each task
- Everyone working in governance professional roles – should set and share a working-time schedule to help improve work/life balance, and join a union, to help give them a voice and professional advice
Conclusion
GovernorHub’s research report gives governance professionals in schools and trusts the evidence to show what they’re worth, and to look to align their pay with equivalent roles in other sectors.
The report recommends that employers and individuals take action to overcome the pay disparities, and ensure that governance professionals are recognised and rewarded appropriately.
By taking these actions, the education sector can strengthen its workforce of governance professionals who play such a vital role in supporting our schools and trusts. Championing these key roles will only serve to support the best possible educational outcomes for our children and young people.