Gendering the School Curriculum

Éva Thun: Gendering the School Curriculum: Approaches to Hungarinan Educational Policies from a Gender Studies Perspective. Voices – A Collection of Working Papers. Ed: Zsuzsa N. Tóth. Department of English for Teacher Education, School of English and American Studies. ELTE, Budapest, 2004. pp. 61-72.

In this paper, I seek to clarify the nature of the conflicts arising from the simultaneous discourses concerning the need for a new and transparent management system (allegedly value free and instrumental to progress) and the discussion of equality and social justice within the context of the ongoing reforms in Hungarian public education. The significance of these issues lies in the fact that these discourses claim to respond to the perceived needs emerging in the wake of the social and cultural economic transformation in Hungary. Additionally, I intend to identify a set of critical stances informed by feminist analysis of educational reforms and gender equality policies in an international analytical - mainly European - context.

For this purpose, I attempt to map the dynamics of changes in educational policy development and to sample the discourses of educational research and theory, in order to find out how it is possible to introduce the concepts and practices of gender equality in educational policy making. I intend to focus on the dynamics of internal and external factors of change and the differences in approaches to the transformation process in education. By doing so, I hope to be able to interrogate the overall direction of educational change with the purpose of being able to identify the possible pitfalls for the inclusion of gender issues as one of the systemic characteristics of the educational system.

The rationale of this analysis is the recognition that in a fair and egalitarian society in which all people are considered to have equal worth and equal rights, a commitment to principles of educational equity is essential. Educational policies cannot avoid expounding a set of values, a philosophy and ideology which construct the social world of students. Provisions for equity should not be considered as forms of welfare provision. Principles of equity should permeate all mainstream policies and practices, and not be considered only as additions to educational planning (Weiner 1994).

Public education should respond to a diversity of needs and experiences, respect distinctive cultural and racial identities and value contributions of all ability groups. Understandings of gender construction should include knowledge about the relationship of gender to other factors, including socio-economic status, cultural background, rural/urban location, disability and sexual orientation (Apple 2001; Weiler 1988).

Imperatives of Education Reform

The post-socialist era is considered to be a new historical chance for modernisation, on the one hand, and for integration to the Euro-Atlantic world on the other. Therefore, the modernisation of the educational system is a high priority on the agenda of social and economic state policies, particularly within the framework of the European Union accession process:

“The Government regards educational policy as an essential condition to economic development. Hungary can only be successful in the future if a competitive and highly qualified labour force with modern knowledge and a capability of further improvement is present in the economy. The Government believes that the task of ensuring participation in education for everybody, raising the standard of training and standardising education is on top of the list of priorities. Therefore, the Government’s educational policy is organised around three principles: (1) Completing the development of a system of regulations, accreditation, quality improvement through developing infrastructural and pedagogical conditions and the content of education; (2) Ensuring equal opportunities terms for institutions with the help of financing mechanisms, as well as providing equal opportunities for everyone through education; (3) Strengthening the role of planning and providing a firm professional grounding” (Strategy for the Development of Hungarian Public Education, Ministry of Education, 1998).

Since educational reform proceeds in a rapidly changing social and economic environment, the systemic conditions of development are at the focus of educational policies, rather that pedagogical development itself. This may account for the fact that the activities of the development of educational policies are often interpreted as not needing concomitant theorisation, rather the ‘technical-instrumentalism’ view of policy development prevails. According to this view, ‘mechanisms’ must be put in place that ensure entrepreneurial efficiency and effectiveness (Moore and Young 2001).

As a consequence, educational theorization in Hungary tends to be content with the analysis of the principles of managerialism. Although these principles are intended to be formulated in a value neutral way, this approach has the potential to create tensions as it is already evidenced by the discussions of feminist pedagogy, which claim that value neutrality in fact perpetuates the domination of patriarchal practices. Consequently the reproduction of those binaries of public/private, which has profound consequences for women and girl students (Blackmore and Kenway 1997), continues in an unreflected manner.

Western educationalists have already provided ample evidence for the fact that educational policies “involving market ‘solutions’ may actually serve to reproduce -- not subvert -- traditional hierarchies of class, race and gender” (Apple 2001). Consequently, one should be aware of the language of technology, for example, in the following description of perspectives

“The key areas to be improved are the educational information system, the monitoring of the effectiveness of policies and policy analysis and research. In relation to the policy implementation capacity of these systems the most striking obstacles are the relatively weak accountability and transparency of the functioning of the management of education.” (Strategy for the Development of Hungarian Public Education, Ministry of Education, 1998.)

Issues such as equality, race, gender, class, and poverty are integrated through variable means into contemporary educational research to a certain degree, but this can be characterised as the “add and stir” method of inclusion. In many cases, issues of inequalities are discussed as problems surfacing residually, comfortably named as “so called post-modern issues” and considered as manifestations of some passing intellectual fashion which unnecessarily dilute the rigorousness and scientific nature of educational theory (Mihály, I. 2000, Bárdossy 2000).

Those theorists who are engaged in the criticism of these partially informed accounts caution against the potentially dangerous consequences of not dealing with those “post-modern fads”. However, they are often marginalized and blamed for their losing sight of the scientific requirements of educational research (Mihály, O. 2001, Buda 1997). As a result, the emancipatory and social empowerment potentials in education are successfully and safely insulated and cloaked in silence by the coupled discourses of professional managerialism and the science based articulation of social research and educational research (Kozma 2002).

Comparative Advantage of the Transition Situation

Péter Radó (2001) points out that “the transition process opened unique opportunities that are based on the “comparative advantage” of newcomers and the atmosphere of revolutionary changes”. Reflection on and conceptualisation of reform and change, however, is not new to educational theory in the international context. Reform in education has been extensively theorised throughout the 1990s. Thomas S. Popkewitz (1991) argues that reform does not necessarily “signify progress, in any absolute sense, but it does entail a consideration of social and power relations.” Therefore, the comparative advantage of the transition process, for example in Hungary, can be interpreted as having the advantage to draw on the knowledge produced on the subject. However, this opportunity may only be exploited if there is a chance that the various forms of privilege and the reproduction of ‘cultural capital’ can be included in the mainstream discourse on education.

It needs to be emphasised that for most disadvantaged groups, the new arrangements resulting from the social and political changes seem to be merely a more sophisticated way of reproducing traditional distinctions between different types of educational opportunities and their accessibility for different students. For example, Zoltán Báthory (1992), a leading theorist of educational reform tends to favour the special provision solution for “fast track” students. His views advocate policies of segregation – without considering the detrimental effects of such a policy, which, however, have been thoroughly analysed already in Western educational reforms.

According to Michael W. Apple (2001), the growing importance of cultural capital infiltrates all institutions in such a way that there is a relative movement away from the direct reproduction of power privileges (transmitted largely through economic property) to school-mediated forms of power privileges. It is the result of a long chain of connections between differentially accumulated economic, social, and cultural capital operating at the level of daily events.

Set against this controversial background in the Hungarian case, the issues of gender inequality can hardly be discussed, since the raising of gender issues would automatically be identified as some sentimental social justice vision, which cannot be catered for in education. However, it should be argued that the comparative advantage is in place only if the lessons learned by other transformation theorists are valued and integrated by the policy makers in the present educational reform in Hungary.

Analysis of Gender Equity in Educational Policy

There is a striking paradox and consequently growing tension between the previously described theoretical position (of favouring selectivity and segregation) and the proclaimed policy intentions of strengthening social cohesion. For example, Péter Radó (2001) insists on emphasising that:

“Education is one of the most important public sectors that are able to strengthen the cohesion of a society. In the circumstances of the transition process this function of education is more important than ever before. It cannot be achieved without deliberate policies aiming at reducing the number of losers of the thorough changes in the region. ... The socio-economic status, the place of residence, the family background, the individual abilities or the affiliation to different minorities imposes a greater and more visible impact on the life chances of the individuals.”

Due to the increasing social differences and inequalities during the transition period, the selective characteristic of the educational system became more and more perceivable. It is openly admitted that the equalising of all the possible disadvantages is “neither a realistic objective nor a genuine educational policy issue”. As a result, in many cases selection does depend on affluence, geographical location or ethnicity. The conclusions concerning future perspectives do not seem to be informed by the literature of social justice and practices of dealing with diversity and plurality. But instead the technical imperative, i.e. the need for quality insurance and system of assessment are perceived as sufficient to tackle the ever-growing tension in education caused by inequalities. There is a pronounced emphasis on structural changes and structural provision rather than turning towards functional methodological programmes or best practices in the international context. (Bárdossy 2000).

These directions in policy development do not raise the issues of inclusion, quite the contrary, they concentrate on the idea of special provision and education management tools, rather than speculating on the functions of the “hidden curriculum” and on the nature of ongoing interactions of education with the diversity of social and cultural settings in which the actual schools are embedded.

In conclusion, gender is very rarely specified as a relevant aspect of the equity discourse. The realisation of how gender functions as a means of social regulation is profoundly absent from the Hungarian educational policy documents. Though at least, this absence is noted in the “Report on Public Education in Hungary”:

“On the whole, it can be said that (1) the issue of social and regional inequality has received marked attention throughout the decade, (2) the issue of the education of minorities in general, and that of Gypsies in particular, has been given more attention since the middle of the 90s, but it is not fully integrated into the whole of education policy, (3) the education of special needs students is invariably one of the peripheral issues of education policy, and (4) the issue of the equality of the genders has not appeared on the agenda of policy makers.” (Report on Public Education in Hungary, 2000)

How Can Educational Policy be Informed on Gender Equity?

The Educational Theory Discourse

Having recognised this profound absence of the understanding of gender, it may be useful to search for existing conceptual tools which can accommodate, to a certain degree, the concept of gender, with the purpose of introducing the knowledge produced by feminist theories and gender theories, particularly by feminist pedagogy.

One of the biggest obstacles appears to be the fact that inquiry and discourse in education theory remain fixed in a non-political environment without the articulation of values and beliefs. The "ideology of neutrality" has become internalised in the consciousness of most researchers. The links between the political agendas and research are blurred by the legitimizing function of social and educational research.

Another problem is represented by the unreflected normative male bias, when insisting on the reproduction of some hegemonic value systems and belief systems, usually identified as universal humanistic discourses. Therefore, experience based knowledge or diversity of viewpoints cannot be articulated in this traditional frame of reference. For example, Gábor Halász (1997), stresses the normative role when he discusses the functions of education:

“When analysing the sub-systems in society it is typical to identify four functions: reproduction, adaptation, goal-orientation and integrative functions: The sub-system of education serves all these four functions. It participates in the social reproduction, and it has greater and greater role in the enhancement of adaptation, cooperation. Education also serves as a mediator – although in a limited way – in the justification of political objectives. – therefore, it has an ever growing function in securing social integration according to the accepted norms and standards.”

In the educational theory discourse on the significance of education as transmitter of normative values -- which is mainly characterised by the hegemony of dominant modernist discourses -- there are only a few authors who venture to raise the issues of plurality, pluralism, and diversity. Generally, education is informed by the unreflected acceptance of the normative discourses on power management and technical efficiency. It is accepted as a professionally sound pedagogical approach to foster “socialisation, domestication, cultivation, personal development of the young” through a variety of teacher dominated techniques. In this setting, it is the teacher who transmits knowledge and shapes/produces the student’s personality. There is an underlying pedagogical norm and set of ethics, which determine the standards of good and bad in teaching and learning, and forecasting success or failure accordingly. Pluralism in education does not fit well with this “traditional normative” stance, since it tends to question the prescriptive legitimacy of pedagogies and theories on education. Educational theorisation on pluralism has arrived relatively late in the arena of Hungarian educational discourses. It is fair to say that educational theory has not even faced the issues of diversity. The “paradox” of plurality of values is simply acknowledged to exist but has not been tackled in any form of analysis. Ottó Mihály (2001) remarks that attempts “to cure the symptoms” have been made, but the core of the problem has not been dealt with:

“University courses have become more colourful in the wake of the inclusion of a variety of educational paradigms, they are discussed one by one, and then the tutor selects one which is deemed to be followed and used, without providing any justification for his/her preference or in depth analysis. The notions of interdisciplinary and post-modern theories are not mentioned, perhaps in the hope that they will prove to be ephemeral fads, and when they are over, the professors can continue, undisturbed, advocating the unitary, normative pedagogy based on the traditions of Enlightenment values.”

A variety of educational and social theorists have already presented compelling arguments that illustrate the reproduction of social, economic, political, and cultural inequalities through the organization and structure of the schooling process (Giroux 2001; Arnot 1997; Apple 2001; Luke 2000). Educators from diverse cultural and ideological backgrounds have pointed to the political and ideological nature of schooling and the ways in which schools reproduce the status quo through hegemonic practices. There is an opportunity to draw on this scholarship for educational theory in Hungary in order not to repeat the patterns of “blaming educational inequalities on those who are discriminated against” type of rhetoric. It can be identified as the theorists’ task to develop a framework that takes issues of power, democracy, and inequality seriously, as well as educational structures and practice, in the process of reforming public education. It would be useful to debate the conventional approach informed by "scientific paradigms" to those types of problems which are otherwise reluctantly acknowledged as being the “business” of science (Waters 1998). A paradigm of educational research which includes ethics, political feasibility, and a set of practical alternatives could become instrumental to change. In this context, feminist pedagogy and praxis could well be accommodated in this newly formed paradigm.

The Legal Discourse

The legal discourse concerning equity in education is based on the prohibition and monitoring of all kinds of educational discrimination; assuring internationally accepted rights of children and minorities. The principle of non-discrimination is limited to the demand for equal treatment, without reference to specific circumstances. It is not self-evident, however, that formal equal treatment, under uniform conditions, is sufficient to guarantee full and effective equality in practice (Stromquist 1996).

In this context, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children (1989) is often mentioned as one of the compelling guidelines, although, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1981) which has provided governments with a framework for enacting legislation to promote equality between women and men is not mentioned or cited in any of the documents dealing with equality and equity in public education.

It is not of assistance – it even leads to the weakening of any legal argument - that there is no national equal opportunity legislation in effect at present in Hungary. As a result, one should be sufficed with referring to constitutional rights and the vaguely implementable concepts of human rights. A preliminary draft of a national equality law is in circulation for evaluation, which, however, still emphasises the “tradition” of anti-discrimnation legislation rather than affirmative policies.

Feminist Discourses

The lack of a feminist construct in current Hungarian society is often justified with the ‘there is no need’ argument: feminism is not needed, because of the negative experience of the communist ‘solution to the woman question’. The socialist-communist system discredited emancipation and the ‘woman question’ when, through the implementation of bureaucratic measures, they forced women into ‘equality’ against their own will. (Thun 2001)

Jirina Siklova (1996) comments on all the women’s issues raised by West European feminisms, such as employment of women, domestic violence against women, and sexist representation of women in the media, and concludes that they are often portrayed in Central Eastern Europe as the luxury of western women. Women's facing the glass ceiling in their careers is portrayed as individual psychological problems. Discussions of the social construction of the role of motherhood are relegated to the realm of philosophy. “Thus, feminist issues are interpreted as psychological or philosophical issues, while feminism is portrayed as an extremist ideology. As we are at present wary of any ideologies, it is unsurprising that feminism is not attracting followers.”

In summary, feminist activism, which would have the potential of putting pressure on policy changes, and which has been in the western experience a forceful tool for change, is struggling to gain voice in Hungary at the moment. Therefore, it is unlikely that it could become the initiator of policy changes.

Concluding Cautionary Notes

There is a growing amount of literature which interrogates and critiques the involvement of feminist academics as educators in the policy initiatives targeting the promotion of "gender equity" in education. Chandra Mohanty (1990) points out that equity is “a term of concealment”. It functions to confirm traditional rules and relations by declaring the right of non-dominant persons to "assume the position" of dominance and to do the same things as “the normatively sanctioned subject of human rights”.

Mary Bryson, and Suzanne de Castell (1993) also emphasise the ‘aggressively dominant’ normalising character of gender equity prerogatives when they argue that:

“This compulsory submission of all children to extensive and intrusive state "standards" is the process whereby the state constitutes the subjects to which it then accords the rights that it then goes on to represent. This is what "equity" in education seems to have meant for minority students: the right to try but inevitably to fail to become white, male, and middle class. And this is what institutional "gender equity" policies seem to signify most often for girls and women: an impossibly contradictory injunction, on the one hand, to enact a series of characteristics designated as "gender-appropriate" in educational feminism's project (for example, to legitimate "women's ways") and, on the other hand, to embrace and participate ever more "equally" in the set of rules, roles, and relations established and maintained by a predominantly masculine power-elite.”

This recent critique of gender equality policies may be considered in two ways in the analysis of educational policies in the present process of development in Hungary (and perhaps in the other post-socialist countries as well): On the one hand, it may underscore the importance of the local analysis of the “comparative advantage” position of the transitional situation. On the other hand, it cautions us to recognize both the advantages, but also the dangers of over-regulation or rigid implementation of state policies concerning gender equity and equal opportunity provisions. This critical account urges theorising in a more detailed way and acting more in terms of local initiatives to foster genuine recognition of plurality and diversity.

Bibliography:

Apple, Michael W. "Comparing Neo-liberal Projects and Inequality in Education" Comparative Education. Vol. 37. No. 4. (2001): 409–423.

Apple, Michael W. "The Rhetoric and Reality of Standards-Based School Reform. " Educational Policy, Vol. 15. No. 4. (September 2001): 601-610.

Arnot, Madeleine. "'Gendered Citizenry': New Feminist Perspectives on Education and Citizenship." British Educational Research Journal. Vol. 23. Issue 3. (1997): 275-96.

Az egyenlő bánásmódról és az esélyegyenlőségről szóló törvény koncepciója (Tervezet) Igazságügyi Minisztérium. Budapest, 2002. november.

Bárdossy Ildikó. "Esély(teremtés) és együttműködés. " Új Pedagógiai Szemle. No. 1. (2000)

Báthory, Zoltán. Tanulók, iskolák - különbségek. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó, 1992.

Blackmore, Jill and Jane Kenway. Eds. Gender Matters in Educational Administration and Policy: A Feminist Introduction. London and Washington. D. C.: Falmer Press, 1993.

Bryson, Mary, and de Castell, Suzanne. "En/Gendering Equity: On Some Paradoxical Consequences of Institutionalized Programs of Emancipation." Educational Theory Vol. 43. No. 3. (Summer 1993): http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/Educational-Theory/Contents/43_3_Bryson.asp

Buda, Mariann. "A nevelési rendszerek elemzésének szükségességéről." Új Pedagógiai Szemle. No. 11. (1997)

Giroux, Henry A. "Cultural Studies as Performative Politics. " Cultural Studies and Critical Methodologies, Vol. 1. No 1. (2001): 5-23.

Halász, Gábor. "Bevezetés az oktatási rendszerek elméletébe." Oktatási rendszerek elmélete. Eds.

Halász, Gábor and Lannert, Judit. Budapest, OKKER, 1997.

Kozma Tamás. "Pedagógiánk paradigmái." Neveléstudomány az ezredfordulón. Eds. Csapó, Benő and Vidákovics, Tibor. Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó, 2002. 23-38.

Luke, Carmen. "Feminist Pedagogy Theory: Reflections on Power and Authority." Educational Theory. Vol. 46. No. 3. (Summer 1996): 283-302.

Mihály Ildikó. "Esélyegyenlőtlenség – az első híján van-e második esély?" Új Pedagógiai Szemle. No. 3. (2000)

Mihály Ottó: "Pedagógiai, etikai, tudományos és jogi normák az iskolai erkölcsi szocializációban. A „klasszikus” pedagógia és a nevelés „klasszikus” paradoxonai." Új Pedagógiai Szemle. No. 1. (2001)

Mohanty, Chandra. "On Race and Voice: Challenges for Liberal Education in the 1990's." Cultural Critique. No. 14 (1990): 179-208.

Moore, Rob and Michael Young. "Knowledge and the Curriculum in the Sociology of Education: towards a Reconceptualisation." British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 22. No. 4. (2001)

Popkewitz, Thomas, S. A Political Sociology of Educational Reform. Power/Knowledge in Teaching, Teacher Education, and Research. New York and London: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1991.

Radó Péter. "Reform-maraton. A kilencvenes évek." Iskolakultúra. No. 4. (2001): 89-98.

Radó Péter. Transition in Education. Policy Making and the Key Educational Policy Areas in the Central-European and Baltic Countries. Open Society Institute. Institute for Educational Policy. Budapest, 2001.

Report on Public Education in Hungary. Budapest, Országos Közoktatási Intézet, 2000.

Siklova, Jirina. "Different Region, Different Women: Why Feminism Isn’t Successful in the Czech Republic." Colonization or Partnership? Eastern and Western Social Sciences. Replika, English Special Issue. Eds. Miklós Hadas and Miklós Vörös. Budapest: Replika Kör, 1996. 91-95.

Strategy for the Development of the Hungarian Public Education. Ministry of Education, 1998.

Stromquist, Nelly, P. "Gender Sensitive Educational Strategies and Their Implementation." International Journal of Educational Development. Vol. 17. No. 2. (1997): 205-214.

Thun Éva. "Constructing Gender in Hungarian Cultural Discourses in the 1990s." Women and Politics: Feminism(s) with an Eastern Touch. Eds. Durda Knezevic, Koraljka Dilic, and Anne Dabb. Zagreb: Zenska Infoteka, 2001.

Waters, Gisele A. "Critical Evaluation for Educational Reform. " Educational Policy Analysis Archives. Vol. 6. No. 20. (November 1998):

Weiler, Kathleen. Women Teaching For Change. Gender, Class and Power. Massachusetts: Bergin and Garvey Publishers, 1988.

Weiner, Gaby. Feminisms in Education. An Introduction. Buchingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1994.