Gender and School Policy

Introduction to Topic

Gender can mean different things to different people, referring to the assigned sex at birth and/or the gender someone identifies with.

For the purposes of this chapter, we will use the World Health Organisation (n.d.) definition of gender which looks at the characteristics of women and men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. It describes gender as the norms, behaviours and roles of women, men, girls and boys, with associated notions of masculinity and femininity. Gender differs from society to society and it changes over time. Gender is hierarchical, and produces inequalities. Gender also intersects with other characteristics such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, age, geographic location, gender identity and sexual orientation, among others.

Gender is different but connected to sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs. Gender is also connected but separate to gender identity, a person’s internal sense of gender which  may or may not correspond with sex assigned at birth.

How we look at gender in the education system and the areas of priority differ from context to context. In some contexts, the primary focus is on the inclusion of women and girls in education and the gendered experiences of all students in school. In other contexts, there is a focus on the inclusion of gender diverse students, the interactions of trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming students with gendered policies, and how potential discomfort can be relieved.

What does school policy encompass and how does gender affect school policies?

Policies are essentially a collection of ideas or plans that a group of people have officially agreed to follow under specific circumstances. In the context of education, policies serve as formal documents outlining the procedures and values that guide schools in their everyday practices. These educational policies are designed to create safe and supportive environments where students can learn and thrive.  Educational policies are set at different levels:

Global/international level educational policies are set by the international organisations such as UNESCO (Education for All) or the EU (Gender Equality Strategy). The UNESCO Gender Equality Monitoring Report (UNESCO, 2017), outlines who is responsible for what in ensuring gender equality in schools. The Education for All (EFA) Framework for Action emphasised that “gender-based discrimination remains one of the most intractable constraints to realising the right to education” (World Education Forum, 2000, 6). After all these years, although the context has evolved, addressing gender inequality in education remains a crucial focus of the global agenda.

Macro Level- National level policies are developed by the central governments. In some  countries they are the only documents and are implemented by all schools in all contexts. For example, in Turkey, all public schools are under the authority of the Ministry of Education. Private schools are also closely regulated by the Ministry regarding curriculum implementation, rules, and other activities. As a result, decisions related to gender policies are made by the central authority.

At a national level in any country, governments are responsible for formulating and implementing policies that directly affect every aspect of the education sector. For example, policies related to  admission requirements, free public school, providing different types of schooling (girls or boys school), staffing, teacher training, admission of teachers and the well-being of students are all national level policies in different contexts.Governments are generally responsible for developing policies related to sanitation facilities, gender sensitive teacher programs, non-discriminatory curricula, regulations and other policies (UNESCO, 2017).

Intermediary level policies are developed by regional governments, city councils, managerial bodies, religious groups and any local communities. For example, schools in Ireland generally have a patron body who makes decisions on policies for all schools under its ethos (see the section on the Irish context for more detail).

Institutional level policies are the school level policies that are related to daily operations of school to create a supportive, inclusive and gender sensitive environment conducive to learning. These include, for example, policies related to creating a positive school culture, operational efficiency to be sure that schools operate smoothly and curriculum policies at school and classroom level. Schools are responsible for respecting the regulations, training teachers and providing a comprehensive sexuality education, developing an inclusive bathroom policy and dress code (UNESCO, 2017). Some district and school administrators might not be aware of the requirements of trans children or lack expertise working with them. As a result, they might not think to create a policy in the school to address the needs of young people who identify as transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming (Meyer & Keenan, 2018).

This chapter will focus on gender and how it interacts with school policy. The way policies are written and implemented at a school level has an impact on learners’ and teachers’ experiences of gender and the formation of gender roles and stereotypes at a more structural level.

Key aspects

How does gender manifest in schools?

In today’s world, attending school essentially functions as a rite of passage for young children. In many ways, it is seen as the institution which shapes and instils in them ideas and values that are thought necessary as part of our social existence. This brings within its ambit the wide range of values, morals and ideals that a school seeks to ingrain among the students. Gender, as a form of identity, is inherently also a product of our relations and interactions with other people, including people from other genders. The manner in which people from a particular gender are treated, or “schooled”, or expected to behave, all go on to shape the understanding of gender for young children. Young children going to schools are often made aware of the differential expectations in terms of their gender, as well as the requirements to qualify as a member of the binary gender system (McLeod, 2019). The legitimacy of the knowledge imbibed in schools is often unchallenged. “The very fact that certain traditions and normative ‘content’ are construed as school knowledge is prima facie evidence of their perceived legitimacy” (Apple & King, 1977, 342). The things taught in school, therefore, are treated by children as the objective truth of the world. This goes on to imply that schools have an important role to play in introducing and imposing gender on its students.

The ideas of gender, features and attributes of masculinity and femininity, are all parts of things that are understood in people’s relationships and interactions with one another.  In this context, therefore, it is important to identify the role of the school as a socialising agent. This comes with the understanding that gender is essentially something which is ‘taught’ or ‘learned’, in the context of culture and community. This is essentially a function of the hidden curriculum in schools. “Hidden curriculums are covert lessons that schools teach, and they are often a means of social control” (Martin, 1998, 498). Schools, in this sense, function as a primary agent which helps to impart ideas on gender, whether through overt policies of the education system, or through subtle aspects of the hidden curriculum. Moreover, by means of aspects of the hidden curriculum, teachers and administrators subtly reinforce gender stereotypes, roles and expectations, by means of comments and opinions which reflect traditional ideas of gender.

Masculinity and femininity are often treated as two opposing features which necessitates a strict separation between the two. The differentiation and separation that occurs, thereby relaying a binary idea of gender, is one of the primary ways in which gender is enforced. Schools tend to function in a way that effectively sets out differential roles and expectations by categorising children into either of the categories. This has connotations for the manner in which girls and boys going to school receive different treatment. This can especially be in terms of disciplining mechanisms; the subconscious nature of our gendered mindset is reflected in the ways in which girls and boys are disciplined in schools. The disciplining of girls and boys as per their gender is very often the narrative which drives towards the ideal of man and women, as it is expected by society. This is reflected in the form of commands or punishments, which function to enforce the same. A girl speaking in a loud voice in a classroom may be silenced on the grounds that girls are expected to be docile and soft spoken, whereas the same for a boy would only be in the name of maintaining the required decorum within a classroom. Such acts or commands subtly reinforce the expectations from each gender, thereby contributing to the idea of an ideal masculinity or femininity. In many cases, the differentiation is also played out in terms of the kind of books or games that children are expected to read or play. Disciplinarian systems in schools function as nets of social control, the deviation from which invites sanctions in the form of punishment. This helps to ensure that there is gender conformity in terms of the ideals and values that are prescribed or expected of each gender in the particular community environment. The differentiation also exists in terms of sex education classes and sports activities, in which children are made to feel aware of the differences amongst them.

“I remember an incident in secondary school where a friend of mine was suspended for punching a boy. The incident that occurred happened in the corridor during break time. My friend was walking down the corridor when the boy came up behind her and lifted her skirt, showing her underwear, and then ran off laughing with his friends. My friend was obviously embarrassed and enraged, and so chased the boy and punched him. She got suspended for a day, and he got nothing other than “don’t’ do it again”. Where is the justice and equality in that?” Hannah, Ireland.

In terms of school policy of single gendered schools, it is important to understand how spaces come to be gendered. Some schools view gender as the same as the sex assigned at birth, and therefore work to put people in boxes and curtail freedom of gender expression. Mixed schools, on the other hand, might have more equality inclusive policies, but these can also be restrictive in terms of the strict separation between male and female, and the lack of space for identities that do not fall within the binary. The differentiation and separation is also very often followed by a precedent for an enforcement of heteronormativity that seeks to understand relationships amongst children only in a singular pattern. In many Asian countries especially, fearing the development of romantic relationships in case of intermingling amongst boys and girls, this differentiation is further reinforced. This is dictated by the concern surrounding the protection of female sexuality, which imposes strict restrictions on their mobility as well as their agency and autonomy. “Formal education or schooling involves moving into public spaces, interaction with males (in coeducational schools and with men teachers); or being socialised (through the curriculum) as boys, and supposedly moving away from the eventual goal of wifehood and motherhood” (Chanana, 2001, 38). The idea is to keep the two genders apart, to ensure that the focus of children going to schools is only on their studies and not in other avenues. The policy or underlying principle of schools to maintain separate seating, separate entrance as well as other playtime activities on the basis of gender can also be argued to be driven by this mindset. The existence of same gender schools also overarchingly reflects this world view, with many parents opting to send their children to such schools, especially in the name of safety for young girls.

In same gender schools, there are disciplinarian processes which are in place to ensure conformity to behavioural patterns associated with a particular gender. For example, girls would be asked to comply with notions of how to sit, how to speak, how to conduct oneself in a classroom, the length of the skirt (if the skirt is a part of the uniform), and the manner in which hair is arranged. All of these are mostly associated with typifications into categories. All of these categorisations focus on different aspects of behaviour, which underlie the community notion of the ideal standard of femininity, that is to be aspired to. Even in the case for all boys schools, there is an ideal of masculinity which is sought to be strived for. In schools with co-educational learning, it is the strict separation between the two genders upon which most of the disciplinary practices are based. Any fusion of gender identities runs the risk of threatening the gender divide, which is crucial for dominant groups to perpetuate the hegemony of the male over the female sex. This also functions to typify relations amongst children in a singular pattern and thereby creates the idea of the ‘other’ in terms of opposing gender identities.

The attitudes and beliefs of teachers can reinforce gender roles and impact how teachers view the abilities of students. For example, a teacher is more likely to overrate a boy’s ability in maths and underrate a girl’s, recreating the status quo. Horizontal segregation can determine the subjects that girls and boys select, where girls may be discouraged from taking subjects perceived as male, and teachers may reinforce the gender stereotypes that exist in society (McCracken et al., 2015).

One of the key factors in developing educational policies that creates gender inequality in the schools is the feminisation of the teaching profession, where teaching in early childhood education and in elementary school has historically been dominated by women. At secondary level internationally, the percentage of women teachers is lower than at earlier levels. This global trend is deeply connected to factors such as economic development, urbanisation, women’s societal roles, cultural definitions of masculinity, and the value placed on children and childcare (Drudy, 2008). The reasons suggested for the dropping numbers of male primary teachers indicates a bias towards seeing the ideal primary teacher as female, based on an essentialist belief that a woman’s nature tends to make her better with children. This belief may be stronger among male pre-service teachers than among female pre-service teachers (Drudy, 2008). The feminisation of the teaching profession has raised concerns, particularly the belief that boys need male teachers as role models to develop properly, both academically and personally (Carringthon & McPhee, 2008; McGrath, Moosa, Van Bergen & Deevia 2019). This concern is often tied to the perceived underachievement of boys compared to girls in standardised examinations like PISA (OECD, 2019).

“As a parent with children in both primary and secondary school, I see a distinct difference in the percentages of male and female teachers in each of these school settings. Traditionally, my childs’ primary school has always had predominantly female teachers, with perhaps only one male teacher within the school, often with no male teacher. On the other hand, my other childs’ secondary school has a high percentage of male teachers with a ratio of approximately fifty percent. As long as women are seen as carers and nurturers in society, these ‘soft’ roles will always be dominated by women. Children need to see more male role models in their primary education .” Hannah Solley, Ireland

How does gender stereotyping impact students?

Neuroscientists have shown that there are very few structural differences between the male and female brains at birth. Cordelia Fine (2005), describes how “our minds, society and neurosexism create difference. Together they wire gender. But the wiring is soft, not hard. It is flexible, malleable and changeable.” Further criticism of the notion of a male and female brain builds on this to suggest that by centering the brain as the only thing to explain behaviour, we then ignore the role of the body and the social environment, suggesting that it is not just neurosexism but neurocentrism that is the difficulty (Halberg, 2022). Society creates gendered patterns of behaviour that people then follow which shapes them. By imposing strict ideas of masculinity and femininity on children, we shape their entire lives and for many this causes difficulties and harm (School of Education and Social Work, Birmingham City University, n.d.).

“The first time I remember really noticing I wasn’t “one of the boys” was on the playground. At lunch most of the girls would play skipping and the boys would play football. I remember how it felt to be told by the boys that they didn’t want me to play because I was a girl. It hurt doubly due to what I later realised was gender dysphoria (a feeling of distress and discomfort around my gender), but besides that, the gender stereotypes at play meant that I was put at a distance from boys from then on. Our class in primary school was completely socially segregated by gender from about the age of 7 and your gender was meant to define your likes and dislikes. As a trans person, I constantly felt like the odd one out among groups of girls but there was no other option for me at school.”

Sam, transmasculine, Ireland

Gender stereotypes impact on mental health for all genders. While girls crying or talking about their feelings is celebrated for emotional openness, boys often mask painful or distressing emotions, either through silence or behaviours designed to disrupt. Distress in girls may be diminished and taken less seriously, while distress in boys is missed entirely as a result of this stereotyping and lack of awareness of difficulties. The message that boys should ‘man up’ prevents boys from speaking about their emotions and difficulties and sends a message that these are things that should not cause a problem or impact them so they should work through it themselves (Stentiford et al., 2024).

The lack of discussion of gender diversity and rigid gender roles also cause difficulty for trans and gender diverse (TGD) youth, with one study showing how the marginalisation  of gender diversity “inhibited TGD youth’s self-understanding and left some feeling confused, frustrated and alienated from their peers” (McBride et al., 2020, 13). TGD youth have been shown to have a higher rates of prevalence of depressive disorders, suicide ideation and self-harm than their peers (Becerra-Culqui et al., 2018). Studies suggest that social support, particularly from parents is associated with reduced symptoms of depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicide ideation (Tankersley et al., 2021). Studies have also shown that feeling unsafe in bathrooms was associated with greater levels of problematic anxiety in the past year. The experience of being unable to safely use a bathroom in school may cause or exacerbate anxiety, absenteeism, and a lack of belonging for transgender and gender non-conforming students (Weinhardt et al., 2017).

Of course, like all the dimensions of diversity discussed in this book, this issue needs to be understood through the lens of intersectionality. Poverty has a role in determining gender equality in schools due to the direct and indirect costs of sending children to school. Providing free education can address gender inequality in education but needs to be done alongside strategies to improve the wider social factors that influence familial decisions to send children to schools. In turn, the reduction of gender inequality in education has a significant impact on society. The increase of women’s access to education improves health outcomes for all, particularly lowering maternal and infant mortality rates, preventing childhood malnutrition and reducing the rates of new HIV diagnoses (Bertini and Ceretti, 2020).

Making sure that all school-age children and youth (boys and girls) have equitable access to education is one of the concerns that should be taken into account when discussing gender policy in education. Girls face disproportionate exclusion and disadvantage in school in many nations, while boys underperform and drop out at higher rates than girls in other countries. Although there has been progress since 2000, through initiatives such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals, gender-related barriers continue to combine with other socioeconomic barriers to prevent girls and boys (and women and men) from accessing and benefiting from quality education and learning opportunities. Around the world, 119 million girls are out of school, including 34 million of primary school age, 28 million of lower-secondary school age, and 58 million of upper-secondary school age (UNICEF, n.d). Women make up only 35% of higher education students in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) (UNESCO, 2017a). The reasons vary among countries and communities. The most common reasons are poverty, child marriage, gender-based violence, traditions, religious beliefs etc. In general, poor families often favour boys when investing in education. In addition, in some contexts schools do not meet the safety, hygiene or sanitation needs of girls and this may lead to drop out. In others, teaching practices are not gender-responsive and result in gender gaps in learning and skills development. Moreover, in countries affected by conflict (e.g. Yemen, Palestine), girls are more than twice as likely to be out of school than girls living in non-affected countries (Bentaouet Kattan, Khan, and Merchant, 2023).

Teachers and schools from early years onward have a significant part to play in the experiences of gender stereotyping. Teachers can consider gender in the toys available, the pictures and examples shown in books including textbooks for all subjects, as well as how they speak about subjects and address behaviour. We will give some examples for positive steps teachers can take later on and some resources that you may wish to look at.

How does gender interact with school policy?

Having discussed in detail the idea of gender and the definition of school policy, it is crucial to understand the point at which they interact. Gender as a form of identity is the most ubiquitous across all identities, and therefore, any school policy is bound to have connotations for gender and the way it impacts gender. National curriculum policies, for instance, are pivotal in how gender is depicted, as they have the effect of shaping ideas, expectations, roles and responsibilities through representations present or absent. In most cases, the national curriculum is adopted at the national level and implemented at all schools within the nation. This brings in important questions about cultural differences and context specificity. The manner in which the curriculum is designed is especially important in this context. Appropriate gender depiction, as well as adequate gender representation, needs to be addressed within policies which shape curriculum frameworks. Extensive cultural influence is at play when it comes to building the curriculum, thereby leading to social roles and expectations in schools. This kind of cultural imposition also functions to reinforce unequal gender roles, which can be in the form of gendered division of labour, for example the mother being depicted in curriculum materials as the home-maker, and the father as the breadwinner . Such representation tends to influence career goals and aspirations for children to a large extent, who may feel they do not belong to certain professions based on the lack of representation in school textbooks. With more awareness, the overall curriculum of the school can be largely inclusive and representative, and highlight aspects of equality and respect among people.

However, even when formal aspects of curriculum strive for gender equality, as noted above with regard to discipline, the hidden curriculum may still be one of the key drivers through which gender differences are carried forward by the school. Often, formal school curricula preach inclusivity and equality, and it is only by the attitudes of teachers and administrators that the hidden curriculum plays out. Largely reflected in the mindset of people within systems, the hidden curriculum is enforced and instilled through regular patterns of behaviour and attitude which perpetuate gender stereotypes and roles.

In terms of religious schools, school policy has connotations for the manner in which gender is handled and conceived. A narrow and traditional view of orthodox religions might have the effect of being less open to diversity, and intolerant of diversity, or differential gender expectations and role assigning. In the context of India, for instance, the religious underpinnings tend to focus on female sexuality, and the need to protect it, along with notions of purity and impurity, which are linked to caste status and honour of kin groups (Chanana, 2001). As such, the influence of religion tends to have the effect of reinforcing and perpetuating gender norms and roles. In the case of non-religious schools, they are more likely to adopt policies which are more inclusive and tolerant, and more accommodating of gender differences in terms of identity or expression.

“In a convent school where moral science was a part of the curriculum and a compulsory subject to be studied, values suggesting morality were an important part of the course. This included the imparting of the idea of premarital sex as a sin, and something to be frowned upon. This, however, is also in direct contrast to the science subject which involves lessons on reproduction, and along with it- sex education, thereby sharing knowledge on safe sex practices. Such conflicts between religion and science are especially more visible in the context of school education for us growing up and studying in those schools and imbibing those values” Ayana (she/her), India.

Another important school policy to be analysed in the context of gender, as noted briefly above, is uniform. The policy on school uniform has connotations for the manner in which gender is treated, and thereby communicated to children. Such examples are measuring the length of girls skirts, making sure they are covering themselves in a way that does not draw attention.

“In an all-girls’ convent school, a lot of emphasis was laid on ‘decency’ and acceptable ways of wearing our uniform. In order to enforce this, we were encouraged to wear a long slip underneath our shirts, to ensure that the transparency of white shirts concealed our underwear. As part of the disciplining process which consisted of checking the uniform, the skirts of all the girls would be lifted, to check the slip, or the length of it. In doing so, what started out as a process to maintain modesty entailed the violation of the basic dignity of all girls” Ayana (she/her), India.

Gender-specific school uniforms convey messages about gender separation and expectations based on gender. They also fail to be inclusive in their approach towards non-binary or trans students. A policy which aims at gender-neutral uniforms for students could be seen as the way forward, in an effort to be gender inclusive in their approach, and this is explored further below with regards to trans students.

The important thing to be noted in this regard is that policies need to take into account expressions of gender identity, which also includes within it, an expression of religious or other kinds of identity.

How are trans, gender-diverse and gender-non-conforming students affected by gender policies?

“Cisnormativity is deeply entrenched in societies and institutions, with children assigned from birth into a rigid binary. This system is reinforced throughout the school ecosystem in cisnormative policies, approaches, assumptions and cultures, with particularly negative consequences for trans children” (Horton, 2023, 86).

Cisnormativity is the assumption that everyones’ gender aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth, and therefore all people are cisgender. This assumption permeates all societal systems, including school systems. It is ingrained in the school system with institutional cisnormativity operating without active or conscious effort. It is an invisible system that goes unnoticed by cis teachers, educators and students.

When gender is considered within school policies, specific and hidden policies, it automatically implies gender in a binary sense i.e. boys/males and girls/females. It also implies that gender is the same as sex assigned at birth, so the assumption is that all students are cisgender. This means that schools privilege cisgender young people who identify with their assigned birth gender (McBride & Neary, 2021) , whilst inherently excluding transgender, non-binary and gender non-conforming students from all school policies unless specifically mentioned, simply by not actively thinking about these students.

For instance when creating invisible bathroom policies in which segregated girls and boys bathrooms are the norm, it is already assumed which bathroom should be used by whom, but it is not automatically assumed that trans girls and boys will be allowed to use those bathrooms. Through the assumed cisgender lens, trans and non-binary students experience difficulties when trying to access appropriate bathroom facilities because they are omitted from being actively included in these policies. A study of institutional cisnormativity in primary and secondary schools in the UK saw that some trans pupils were denied access to appropriate facilities such as toilets throughout their time at primary school (Horton, 2023). Another study looking at the experiences of trans and gender diverse students in secondary schools in Ireland found that many students “experienced barriers accessing a bathroom facility that they felt comfortable and safe using following their transition” (McBride et al., 2020, 4), or “were prohibited from using (or felt unsafe using) the toilets that aligned with their gender identity” (McBride & Neary, 2021, 1100).

Another layer to the cisnormative culture within school bathrooms means that many schools only have male and female options for bathroom facilities which eliminates choice for non-binary students and some trans students who may not feel comfortable in gendered bathrooms and would prefer to use a gender neutral option.

Inclusive bathroom options are only recognised once a specific gender inclusive policy is incorporated into a school, and bathroom usage is looked at through a gender sensitive lens that incorporates gender diversity in all forms. You can find examples of gender inclusive bathroom policies on the Gender Inclusive Schools website, as well as on the University of Limerick website.

Trans exclusionary policies can also be seen within school uniform policies. If a school has a uniform policy, it is usually a gender-specific one, with schools implementing a boys’ uniform and a girls’ uniform. Many trans and non-binary students find uniform policies to be “restrictive, while some were prevented from wearing a uniform that aligned with their gender identity” (McBride et al., 2020, 4). There may not be a gender-neutral option available unless a non-binary or trans student requests one. It may also be assumed that all trans and non-binary students will only wear a gender-neutral uniform option and that gendered uniforms may be excluded as an option for trans students, especially trans girls.

“There was greater contention around trans girls/women wearing skirts than there was for trans boys/men wearing trousers. Some schools permitted students assigned female at birth to wear either trousers or skirts, but only permitted students assigned male at birth to wear trousers. Such uniform restrictions made it more difficult for trans girls/women to wear a uniform that aligned with their gender identity and that they felt comfortable wearing” (McBride et al., 2020, 26).

It can be especially difficult in single gendered schools, which often have a rigid uniform policy in place:

“When I was 18 and almost finished secondary school, I told a teacher in my all-girls school that I was trans. Her response was to prioritise telling me that I would need to wear the school uniform including the skirt until I finished my final exams. At that point, I was really struggling at home and in school and would have really appreciated an adult who asked me about any of that. Instead, I found a rigid system that seemed to put the picture of the school before my wellbeing. Today, that school has a trouser option, and they have supported a number of trans students. I am relieved that other students will not share my experience”

Sam, transmasculine, Ireland.

Another area of exclusion for trans students is Physical Education And Sports (PES) choices, especially in secondary schools. Secondary schools sometimes approach PES in a very gender segregated mindset, with boys and girls being separated from doing sports together, as well as gender-specific sports uniforms that can make trans students feel uncomfortable. The barriers to PES participation shows that “TGD youth’s gender presentation, the normative gender culture of PES and gendered sports uniforms, affect how trans youths use sports facilities and can lead to experiences of exclusion and harassment” (McBride et al., 2020, 35).

Gendered sports policies always exclude non-binary students who are forced to choose a gender with which to play in a team, even though they do not identify exclusively as male or female. They can also often exclude binary trans students, who can be excluded from playing with the peer group they identify with if appropriate policies are not in place, thereby excluding, disenfranchising and harming trans pupils (Horton, 2023).

Trans and non-binary students can be included in school policies positively by having a dedicated Gender Identity and Expression or Trans Inclusive policy that can be referred to when a student wants to transition whilst in school or if a trans student is starting in the school. Through having a policy dedicated to gender identity and expression, a school can then use this to inform all other policies in which gender is explicitly or implicitly implied. This should be taken into consideration when thinking about bathrooms, sports, uniforms, curriculum and anti-bullying policies.

However, a trans inclusive policy only works on the basis of a trans student identifying themselves to staff and therefore the school putting procedures in place to support the individual with accommodations. In this way a trans inclusive policy is still exclusionary because it is only ever in reaction to a person asking to be accommodated or welcomed into a cisnormative space, which actually “results in a fundamental silencing of and failure to address broader systemic impacts of institutionalised cisgenderism and cisnormativity” (Martino et al., 2020, 768). It also “highlights the need for knowledge about cisgenderism and cisnormativity to inform both policy and practice – that are designed to support trans youth specifically and gender diversity more broadly” (Martino et al., 2020, 768)

When schools gain more insight into the ways that cisnormativity affects the systematic marginalisation of trans and non-binary students, they can then use this to inform policies proactively that encompass all forms of gender and ways of expression, without the need of the embodied personal experience to enact change.

Who and what influences gender policies in schools?

Gender policy at schools is influenced by a complex interplay of various factors and stakeholders. Here are the key influencers:

• Government and Legislation: In many countries, there are laws prohibiting gender discrimination in educational institutions. In many countries constitutions guarantee equality or non-discrimination across sex and/or gender.
• Administrators: Elected or appointed bodies make policy decisions, including the policies related to gender.
• Educational Organisations and Unions: Professional organisation groups like the National Education Association (NEA) advocate for inclusive policies and provide resources and training for teachers and other stakeholders.
• Unions: Teacher and staff unions often negotiate policies related to gender equality and non-discrimination.
• Parent-Teacher Associations (PTA’s) and Community Groups: These groups can influence school policies by advocating for inclusive practices and supporting specific initiatives.
• Students and student organisations: Students councils can push for changes in gender policy by voicing the needs and concerns of the student body in the community and in schools.
• Activist groups and student-led groups, such as LGBTQI+ alliances, can drive policy changes through activism and advocacy and be powerful voices for gender inclusivity in schools.
• Research and Academic Institutions: Studies conducted by educational researchers and reports from universities provide evidence-based recommendations for gender policies. Think Tanks  focusing on education policy often publish guidelines and research that shape public opinion and policies in education.
• Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and Advocacy Groups: NGOs work to influence gender policy through advocacy, litigation, and public education. Advocacy groups may focus on issues such as gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender equality in education.
• Media/social media: Portrayals of gender issues in the media can shape public opinion and pressure schools to adopt more inclusive policies.
• Social Movements: Broader social movements, such as feminism and LGBTQI+ rights movements, “Me Too” movement have a significant impact on schools’ gender policies.

In summary, gender policy in schools is shaped by a diverse array of actors and influences, ranging from governmental bodies and educational organisations to grassroots activism and international standards. Each of these components plays a role in ensuring that schools are inclusive and equitable environments for all students and creating gender sensitive schools.

What is the impact of anti-gender politics on gender-sensitivity in schools?

Anti-Gender politics has seen an increase over the last number of years and can have a direct impact on schools and educational initiatives, sports and cultural programmes, healthcare and social services, and the use of public spaces in general.

The term ‘anti-gender’ refers to concerted and deliberate efforts, by certain groups of people, to undermine policy and legal provisions for such things as reproductive rights, gender-affirming care, sexuality and relationships education, and LGBTQI+ rights. Anti-gender politics will often position itself as a helpful and benign entity that is trying to protect traditional family values and children, whilst at the same time, attacking freedom of speech, freedom of identity and expression, sexuality and bodily autonomy (RESIST Project Team, 2024).

Ideologically, it refers to movements that see gender equality and diversity, sexual freedom, and feminism as threats to the sanctity of family and of national morality. This is a global movement involving networks of politicians, religious groups and media outlets, amongst others, that have overlapping interests and can work together through the availability of online networks and social media. These different groups often find gender to be a common, unifying ground, as gender is constructed as an attack on either nature (religious actors), nation (nationalistic actors) or normality (conservative actors) (Kuhar and Zobec, 2017).

One of the core directives of anti-gender politics is to frame ‘gender’ as an ideology or theory rather than a factual part of the human experience that can be interpreted in a variety of different ways. In this way, gender itself can be attacked as a political ideology that is threatening family values, putting children’s lives at risk and harming religious doctrines that this movement often stands for. One of the most important targets of the anti-gender movement in Europe is public schools and the educational process. Schools are often accused of brainwashing students or imposing the teaching of gender ideology (Kuhar and Zobec, 2017). This perspective can directly impact how schools approach gender equality and gender diversity – the latter defined as the recognition and respect for a range of gender identities beyond the traditional male-female binary. It also influences how schools create gender-sensitive environments. By framing gender as an imposed ideology, the anti-gender movement seeks to silence discussions about gender and sexuality, portraying them as threats to the safety of innocent children.

Anti-gender movements are also present in higher education in some countries. For instance, deans from several medical schools at Turkish universities have sought to remove the term “sexual orientation” from the universal Hippocratic Oath taken during graduation ceremonies. This change could have resulted in medical doctors refusing to examine LGBTQI+ individuals in hospitals.

The issue of access to bathrooms in schools and public spaces, explored above from a trans perspective above, often comes to the forefront in public discussions from an anti-gender perspective also, usually focusing on the question of who is allowed to use certain spaces and who is not. Trans and gender-diverse students frequently face exclusion from gendered bathrooms, where they are either perceived as a potential threat, or are advised not to use certain facilities under the guise of “protecting” their own safety. These arguments ultimately deny gender-diverse students not only access to bathrooms, but also autonomy over their own bodies and the right to choose spaces where they feel most comfortable. This treatment reduces them to an abstract notion of gender – one constrained by narrow definitions of “real” gender – instead of recognising them as people with valid and lived experiences.

The focus on “traditional” values by the anti-gender movement can exacerbate the policing of school uniforms described above, often (as already noted) subjecting the girls to more scrutiny than the boys. Within the anti-gender movement, uniforms can be politicised, so the legitimacy of who has rights to wear such uniforms becomes a political standpoint. Non-binary people are often left out completely of any uniform choice unless they are willing to fight for a neutral uniform policy within their particular school. Morwana Griffiths has made it clear that, “for any group of people to get an education of their own, the first need is to have a say and be listened to” (Griffiths, 2003, 34). Sadly, some, if not most, educational systems are not willing to be flexible in their approach. Voices of marginalised groups are often stifled, which in turn ‘others’ trans people and fosters an environment of exclusion.

In some countries, the idea of gender as an ideology has been politicised so much that the word gender cannot even be discussed in schools and is seen as something that does not exist. For instance, a conservative/fundamentalist newspaper  in Turkey argued that the traditional Turkish family unit was threatened by the term ‘gender’. The argument’s foundation is the notion that the term gender denotes gender equality, supports feminist movements, and affects young people’s sexual orientation. By the influence of the campaign started by this particular newspaper and supported by religious groups, the term gender was forbidden to be mentioned in many of the governmental offices and various institutions started to remove the Gender Equality Policy Documents from their web pages. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-turkiye-47610198

People are often reduced to their physical anatomy, reinforcing rigid gender roles that limit expression for everyone—girls, boys, men, women, trans, and non-binary individuals alike. Although anti-gender discourse claims to protect traditional values, it imposes restrictive boundaries on how individuals can express their identities.

Reducing gender diversity to an ‘imposed ideology’ strips it of legitimacy, denying society a richer understanding of gender as a valid and natural spectrum of identities. This politicisation of gender undermines schools’ ability to discuss gender openly and to teach relationship and sex education meaningfully, impacting students’ understanding and acceptance. By framing gender as an ideological threat, anti-gender politics also erases the real, lived experiences of trans people, invalidating their identities and forcing them into a framework that dismisses gender as a core aspect of personal identity.

How can schools integrate gender sensitivity into their policies and practices?

Programmes to embed gender sensitivity and equality in schools and education systems require a whole of institution approach.

In the Higher Education Sector, work is ongoing where an institution will look at the data available in its context, analyse that data and then start to develop gender equality plans that apply to the specific institution. One of the programmes that looks at this is Athena Swan Charter, which is present in Ireland, the UK, Canada and Australia.

Athena Swan requires an organisation to bring together the quantitative data available relating to gender for students and staff, in relation to educational experiences and employment. The organisation will also collect qualitative data through surveys and focus groups to understand more the experiences of women, men and non-binary people across the organisation in every role. After collecting data, the organisation undertakes a self-assessment, analysing and reflecting on how the findings apply to its specific context. This process involves thorough self-reflection to identify priority areas for action. Additionally, the data should be examined through an intersectional lens wherever possible, considering other factors that may contribute to inequalities and identifying targeted actions to address these intersecting disparities.

The next step is to create an action plan that addresses the areas relevant to the organisation’s self-assessment. This action plan should be developed from the data collected, and should include specific, trackable objectives that can be continuously assessed to ensure ongoing improvement. While the areas covered will vary by institution, common focuses include employment practices, organisational culture (such as efforts to address gender-based violence), career progression, achievement, and intersectional considerations. For Athena SWAN, these plans are then peer-reviewed by colleagues from other organisations to ensure that the action plan is both ambitious and thorough, and that the organisation has critically examined its own challenges and areas for growth.

For primary and secondary schools, there are also some programmes in place, Gender Action is an award programme based in the UK that “promotes and encourages a whole-school approach to challenging stereotypes” (Gender Action Schools Award, 2023). Gender Action follows a similar approach to Athena Swan, focusing on Reflection, Evaluation and Planning at multiple stages from supporter, to initiator, to champion and finally as a beacon.

To synthesise the discussions throughout this chapter, below are some actions that schools may wish to consider and assess how relevant these are to their contexts.

Policy Review with a gendered lens:

All school policies encompass gender in some way. When policies are reviewed with gender sensitivity, it is important to take certain elements into account. Firstly, it is important to understand that children do not necessarily fit into specific gender stereotypes with a narrow set of social roles and behaviours that they are expected to comply with. It is important for children and young people to know that all emotions, roles, careers etc. are applicable to all genders. Secondly, it is vital to avoid the assumption that gender means only two things, male and female, and consciously include gender diversity in all ways of being and expression. To achieve this, the awareness level of teachers, students, parents and administrators need to be raised in a collaborative way. Thirdly, it is important to tackle the overarching cisnormative and heteronormative culture that is ingrained in the education system and school policies. When there is a comprehensive understanding that not everyone identifies as cisgender or heterosexual, this awareness will be reflected in the development of school policies that consider the diverse family dynamics and the needs of all children and young people in educational settings.

Period Dignity and Sanitary Policies:

To enhance gender equality, schools can implement policies regarding the availability of period products and sanitary bins. For instance, providing free sanitary products in bathrooms and installing bins in all facilities ensures proper sanitation for everyone (Department of Education, 2024). This approach accommodates not only menstruating students but also boys who may need to use incontinence pads, as well as women, trans, and non-binary individuals.

Uniform:

Schools who choose to have a uniform may also consider the option of having an open, uniform policy that has lots of individual items available. This can make every student feel comfortable. The school could have a variety of items available for each student to choose which items of clothing they want to wear as part of the school uniform. This creates a universally inclusive clothing option for students.

Curriculum:

Curriculum is a key factor that should be included when discussing gender in relation to school policies. Recognising the importance of gender, a gender lens should be applied when addressing development and reviewing the curriculum. Key considerations include the diversity of the group developing the curriculum, the representation of individuals in the texts being created, and whose ideas and stories are valued. It is crucial that the curriculum does not reinforce stereotypes.

The Fawcett Society’s report outlines this, calling for this issue to become a Government priority. From an education standpoint, they recommend that the early years sector should be valued better, with an increased investment in professional development for educators, improved salaries, funding for inclusive resources, and taking a whole-school approach to embedding gender equality (Fawcett Society, 2020).

Pedagogical practices: 

These are the individual practices of teachers in the classroom, how we teach and what we teach. As a school, there may be policies about what language should be used in the classroom, but teachers should be conscious of this and their discourse. For teachers working in areas without the ideal policies, this is an opportunity for teachers to influence change and integrate gender inclusivity into the school and its policies. Teachers can create an environment that integrates gender inclusivity through their teaching materials, the language they use, how they support participation, challenging gender norms and creating a safer space for all genders (Teachers.Institute, 2024).

Local contexts

Literature

About the authors

name: Ayana Pathak

Ayana Pathak is an aspiring academic, currently pursuing her doctorate in the Department of Education from the University of Oxford. Her research interests surround the area of qualitative aspects of gender education in developing countries, with a focus on school education. This largely draws upon various theoretical concepts of sociology of education, as well as the concept of the hidden curriculum, through which the social construction of gender as a category is aimed to be evaluated. Her academic background is in the discipline of Sociology, having done her Bachelor’s and Master’s in the same, before embarking on an MPhil in Education and thereafter, the current DPhil programme at Oxford. She is a passionate feminist who aims to study questions of inequality in the field of education- through the lens of gender based reproduction theory.

name: Cennet Engin

Cennet Engin is a full professor who teaches undergraduate and graduate courses related to education, curriculum, social foundations of education, needs assessment and classroom management at the Faculty of Education. She worked as an expert and consultant at various international projects, on inclusion, gender equality in education, gender sensitive schools, strengthening democratic culture in primary education, prevention of domestic violence against women and digital citizenship. Her academic works included girls’ education, democratic schools, inclusive education, democratic citizenship and human rights education, child labour and education and gender policy in education.  She was awarded a Fulbright Senior Research scholarship and conducted research at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

name: Hannah Solley

Hannah Solley (she/her) is a qualified Dramatherapist who has worked in the area of youth, family and mental health for over fifteen years. She has designed and implemented mental health awareness programmes as well as working in anti-bullying programmes in schools. She has been working with the trans community for several years, providing family and teen support, as well as educational guidance to schools and organisations in Ireland. This includes trans inclusive policies, best practice ways to support gender diverse students and peer education in gender diversity and allyship. She is passionate about youth mental health and creating positive changes to help young people reach their full potential.

name: Sam Blanckensee

Sam Blanckensee (they/he) is a equality, diversity and inclusion practitioner based in Ireland with extensive experience in equality in Higher Education through their role as the Equality Officer at Maynooth University. Sam holds an MA in management for the nonprofit sector. Sam has worked within Irish LGBTQ+ organisations in voluntary and professional roles since 2013. Sam’s work covers a broad range of equality, diversity, inclusion and interculturalism initiatives including LGBTQ+ matters, gender equality, anti-racism, disability awareness and access for those within the international protection system. Sam is a non-binary trans person who is also neurodivergent and queer, All Means All is a project where the personal meets professional for Sam.