give an a

school ma t t e r s

A Paradigm Shift That Can Help Students Thrive

and Schools Succeed

B y J e n n i f e r B r y a n

80 I n d e p e n d e n t S c h o o l

All learning begins when our comfortable ideas turn out to be inadequate.

— John Dewey, psychologist, educator

G iven how pervasively p o liti­ cal, cultural, educational, and religious institutions are built on a foundation of stereotypes and binary assum ptions, it is easy to understand why people find the current reassessm ent of all things gender disquieting and

disruptive. The consequences of this upheaval can be found in all corners of pre-K-12 schooling, from the first- grade boy who wants to wear a dress to school, to the middle school girl who wants to play football, to genderqueer high school students seeking affirma­ tion and inclusion.

W hen I began working with inde­ p e n d e n t schools on gender-related issues 16 years ago, the goal was to open educators’ hearts and minds, and help them understand children and adolescents who were diverse in terms o f their gender and sexuality. At the time, using the LGB (and reluctantly, T) framework was the standard approach. Even if teachers weren’t comfortable saying the words lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender out loud, LGBT was a recognizable acronym that organized thinking and actions. Over the years, however, this narrow framework has perpetuated a focus on “gay kids” or stu­ dents who are “different.” As a result, we have m issed the broad impact of sex­ ism, homophobia, and heteronormativ- ity on all students, o f every age.

A R o b o tic s Tale A fourth-grade teacher shared with me his observation that the boys in his robotics class typically dom inate the building, program m ing, and operat­ ing, while the girls m ake the colorful

posters for their team. “I try to encour­ age the girls to get m ore involved, but they are really reluctant,” he said. He invited m e to visit and observe. After a h alf hour, with the teacher’s blessing, I stopped the class to share a three-m in­ ute video m ontage with the students. The video exposes Lego’s sexist, binary approach to m arketing the salon, the mall, and the Lego Friends beach party to girls and the volcano heavy-lift heli­ copter, deep-sea operations base, and heavy-haul train set to boys. I read a seven-year-old girl’s letter to Lego in which she complains that boys get to go on adventures and work, while the girls shop and don’t have jobs. W hen these fourth-graders learned that Lego did m ake a very cool set o f wom en scientists a few years ago and then, in spite of its enorm ous popularity, discontinued the product, they grew indignant. Fourth-graders care a lot about fairness, and they saw Lego’s gendered m arketing m anipulations as blatantly unfair.

T hen I shared my observations with the class: The boys are, indeed, doing m ost of the building and cool stuff, and the girls are m aking the post­ ers. W hen I asked, “Why do you think that is?” the discussion that ensued was rich with discernm ent, critical thinking, and humanity. The students understood that what was happening in th eir classroom was m ore com ­ plicated than “boys taking over” and “girls being shy.” The teacher emailed m e a week later to say that his students were themselves working to mix up the team responsibilities and frequently used the video and our discussion as a reference point. They want to undo

s c h o o l m a t t e r s

the imbalance and disrupt sexist stereotypes; they want to play fair.

How does changing the gender dynamics in elementary school m at­ ter? Susan Silbey of the M assachusetts Institute of Technology has been studying gender patterns in e n g in e e rin g e d u ca­ tion for years. Her recent article, “Why Do So Many Women Who Study Engi­ neering Leave the Field?” (Harvard Business Review, A ugust 2016) d e m o n ­ strates the rampant sex­ ism women experience in the group-project format — a format central to work in engineering. What begins as exclusion in fourth-grade robotics becomes a corrosive perpetua­ tion of marginalization and workplace hostility.

While independent schools invest heavily in STEM initiatives, female students who go on to pursue a career in science are at high risk of being harassed out of the field.1

Every Student Is Affected, Some More Than Others Because they live and breathe gender stereotypes from the m om ent they are born (or before they are born!), too many students reject all kinds of activities and subjects, even before they are old enough to know why they are doing so. Boys don’t dance. Girls don’t wrestle. Boys are good at math. Girls are better at English. And the gender bias leads seamlessly into sexuality bias. Boys who are “too femi­ nine” are gay; adolescent girls who are “too masculine” are threatening. Boys who have sex are players; girls who have sex are sluts. The impact of sexism, misogyny, homophobia, heterosexism, and heteronormativity on the healthy gender and sexuality identity development of all children at every age has been ignored at great cost to our students.

Students who don’t fit the het- eronormative paradigm often endure

G e n d e r & S e x u a lity D iv e rs ity in PK-12 Old Story? Same Story? N ew Story

Dr. Jennifer Bryan

TEAW flrJU l

aM n U £

MlSSiOrJ

TwtRsrrV

GRAPHIC RECORDING BY MATT ARGUELLO

A

psychological, physical, and sexual harassm ent throughout elementary, middle, and high school. In 2015, the federal government used its biannual Youth Risk Behavior Survey for the first time to document that students who identify as lesbian, gay, and bisex­ ual, or those who have sexual contact with people of the same sex or both sexes, are at much greater risk than students who identify as heterosexual for physical violence, sexual violence, bullying, substance abuse, depression, unwanted pregnancies, and sexually transmitted diseases.2 A senior official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found the results of the survey “heartbreaking,”3 yet middle and high school educators have wit­ nessed the vulnerability and victimiza­ tion of nonheteronormative students for decades.

Shifting the Framework; Gathering Data This magazine devoted its summer 2010 issue to examining the role of gender and sexuality in independent schools. I contributed an article back then that proposed a new framework for thinking about these issues, and I developed the concept further in a book, From the Dress-Up Comer to the Senior Prom: Navigating Gender and Sexuality Diversity in PreK-12 Schools (Rowman and Littlefield Education, 2012). In the article and book, I argue

that we need to shift our thinking about sex, gen­ der, and sexuality from a prim arily binary view to one that is more accurately inclusive of all. To do so, we need to think in terms of Gender and Sexuality Diver­ sity (GSD), which is a broad construct that includes all sexes, genders, and sexuali­ ties — even those we might n o t yet know about or might not yet have named. GSD allows us to c o n ­ sider the multiple, complex, in terrelated com ponents that make up biological sex, gender, and sexuality for

every hum an being. Even though there have been regu­

lar additions to LGBT (QQIAA)4 over the past 10 years, this long queue of identities cannot accommodate the depth and breadth of our collective gender and sexuality diversity, no m at­ ter how many letters we add. In the years that I have been using GSD in my work with independent schools, pre-K-12 educators have had a variety of responses to this conceptual frame­ work and to the New Diagram of Sex, Gender, and Sexuality (NDSGS) (see diagram on page 83), which I use as a teaching tool. Perusing a handout of the NDSGS, some teachers let out a small yip of recognition: Hey! There I am! Others are cautiously enthusi­ astic, as they consider each spectrum and th in k about w here differen t people in their own lives might fit in this schema. Some are perplexed by how different this way of thinking is. Yet almost every teacher is quick to recognize a paradigm that adequately encompasses and affirms every single student, every family, and every col­ league with whom they have ever worked. Instead of thinking about some children as “not fitting into the box,” teachers can locate all of their students along a normative spectrum of possibilities.

Take a moment and locate yourself on these spectrums. Where are you in terms of your identity, expression, and

82 I n d e p e n d e n t S c h o o l

BIOLOGICAL SEX (anatom y, c h ro m o s o m e s , h o rm o n e s )

m ale intersex fe m a le

GENDER IDENTITY (su b je ctive sense o f o n e ’ s ow n gender) <--------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------->

id e n tifie s as a m an g e n d e rqueer id e n tifie s as a w o m a n

GENDER EXPRESSION (c o m m u n ic a tio n o f g ender and gendered tra its ) <----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- ►

ste re o ty p ic a lly “ m a s c u lin e ” g e n d e r flu id ste re o ty p ic a lly “ fe m in in e ”

ATTRACTION/SEXUAL ORIENTATION (a ttra cte d to people w h o id e n tify as w o m e n ) •<----------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ►

n o t at all attracted very attracted

ATTRACTION/SEXUAL ORIENTATION (attracted to people w h o id e n tify as m en) <-------------- ------------------------------------------------------- -------------- >

n o t at all a ttra cte d very a ttra cte d

ATTRACTION/SEXUAL ORIENTATION (a ttra cte d to people w h o id e n tify as n e ith e r m an n o r w o m a n , o r a c o m b in a tio n o f b oth)

<---------------------------------- -------- ► n o t at all a ttra cte d very a ttra cte d

asexual

DEGREE OF SEXUAL ATTRACTION/AROUSAL

sexual very sexual

SEXUAL BEHAVIOR (e ro tic a n d /o r sexual a ctivity)

is sexual w ith w o m e n is sexual w ith tw o o r m o re genders is sexual w ith m en

SEXUAL IDENTITY (h o w one id e n tifie s th e ir sexuality) • S tra ig h t/H e te ro • G a y /L e s b ia n /H o m o s e x u a l • Bi-sexual

• Asexual -Q u e e r • Pansexual

CREDIT: JENNIFER BRYAN, SEBASTIAN BARR, AND CHRISTOPHER OVERTREE; M O DIFIED FROM DIAGRAM OF SEX A N D GENDER © 2 0 0 0 CENTER FOR GENDER SANITY

behavior? Now take another moment and think about your 15-year-old self. How would you have identified back then if given these options? When we ask large groups of educators to do this self-assessment, here’s what happens: “How many people changed between age 15 and today?” Plenty of hands go up. “How many didn’t?” Plenty of hands go up. “Let’s look at that again.” It is quiet during the second round of hand-raising as people survey the room, and then there is a buzz of recog­ nition. This in-the-moment experience of variation conveys the truth of human development in a way no textbook ever could. Even though we associate “normal” development with linearity and consistency over time, fluidity can be part of healthy gender and sexuality identity development as well.

The fundamental premise of GSD is that an exclusively binary view of our biology, gender, and sexuality is inac­ curate and ultimately harmful. In our recent research project, Team Finch Consultants tested the hypothesis that, for some individuals, sex, gender, and sexuality are not categorical, but varied and continuous. We speculated that the inherent diversity of hum an beings would be more fully represented by a collection of spectrums, rather than binary categories. (e.g., one is either a m an or a woman). The results of the study went beyond confirming the existence of a variety of nonbinary bio­ logical sexes, genders, and sexualities.5 The findings also suggest that gender diversity is not limited to transgender people and that sexual diversity is not limited to LGBTQ+ people.

This challenges a question we hear often at our client schools: “Why are we spending so much time on issues that affect a very small percentage of our students?” Here are the big takeaways: • not everyone fits in a binary box; • some people do fit in binary boxes; • some of those who fit in the box

express themselves outside the box when given the chance; and

• everyone is affected by gender bias and sexuality bias regardless of how they identify (see fourth-grade robotics story above).

Gender and Sexuality Diversity at School Independent schools have many more resources and operate under different and fewer rules than public schools. Their greatest privilege is having the pedagogical freedom to create educa­ tional communities that actually teach to their mission rather than to stan­ dardized state tests. When trustees,

a d m in istra to rs, faculty, and sta ff pair the school’s mission and values with the GSD framework, the entire community benefits (see sidebar on page 84).

When a rising senior who had been at a girls’ school since seventh grade wanted to complete his gender transition and graduate as a boy, the head of school called me. “How should

W i n t e r 2 0 1 7 83

school mat t er s w h w b u ii u rn « i M m w i iinnii i i i ' M n w M g B M

the community respond?” she asked. “What should the policy on transgen­ der students be? Are we a single-sex school or a single-gender school?”

These profound questions get to the heart of the school’s identity. What does it mean to be an institution com­ mitted to educating girls when the definition of girl is in flux? In truth,

there is no widely accepted answer to that question yet. This student was valued as an integral member of the school community, respected, and loved. Ultimately, the school’s values of acceptance, inclusion, and respect prompted the head to support the student’s graduation in his affirmed gender identity.

G S D P R O F E S S IO N A L D E V E L O P M E N T GSD professional development consists of far more than acquiring content knowledge. Interactive, hands-on learning opportunities allow teachers to reflect on their own experience, create practice and curricular intentions, and invest in institutional efforts to increase inclusivity. Here is a sampling of teacher responses from a pre-K-12 school I worked with at the beginning of the school year.

W h a t m ig h t y o u do in t h e f i r s t tw o w e e k s o f s c h o o l to p r o a c t iv e ly c r e a t e a f o u n d a t io n o f s a f e t y in r e la t io n to G SD ? • Talk about heteronormative stereotypes in sum m er reading. • Make these topics as much a part of the experience as “traditional” ones. • Look at my lessons to see how inclusive my content is. • Will use the social tru st barometer and other tools. • Set classroom norms that address equality for all groups, including GSD. • Look more closely at the layout of the classroom and materials

available. • Listen more with these ideas in mind as I watch interactions among

the children. • Not divide students up boy/girl. • Be more conscious of the language I use to refer to sex, gender,

and sexuality.

H o w m ig h t y o u a d ju s t, a d d to, r e in t e r p r e t y o u r c u r r ic u lu m to in c lu d e m o r e / d i f f e r e n t / d e e p e r GSD w o rk ? • Incorporate more books that reflect GSD. • Be more intentional about moving away from the binary. • I am already thinking about this. So how can I represent a more inclu­

sive social studies content? • Learn about methods o fte a ch in g th a t address h ow to pose questions

to children and increase th e irth in k in g a b o u t gender issues. • When we are creating dances/books in Spanish, ask the students to

create their own gender/identity. • Since I teach science, I will look for materials that portray scientists,

inventors, etc. who come from a variety of backgrounds. • Create more projects around GSD issues. • Last year I did a [fifth-grade] math project on the Oscars [race and

gender], I want to start with the Olympics. What do you notice? What do you wonder?

Making hard-and-fast policy in the midst of not knowing is risky busi­ ness. As we find our way through this cultural transformation — where no one can predict exactly where we will end up — best practices can be found by pairing greater understanding of gender and sexuality diversity with mission values. For example, many trustees feel that creating new policies related to GSD is a compulsory part of board governance. I have found that board education about sex, gender, and sexuality goes a long way in softening hard-line opposition to (and fear of) any discussion of change or accom­ modation. There are still strong differ­ ences of opinion, but with greater con­ ceptual understanding and a shared accurate language, trustees are less reactive, more productive, and better prepared to make 21st-century deci­ sions that honor the purpose of their schools. And not all decisions come in the form of policies.

There is a growing awareness that school leaders need to reassess many long-standing practices in pre-K-12 independent schools. A short list:

• A d m issio n d e p a rtm e n ts m u st explore the intention of asking questions about sex (or gender) on the application form. What infor­ mation are you really looking for and will checking boxes marked male and female provide it? If the first invitation to identify a prospec­ tive student is binary, how many families will look elsewhere?

• Dress code battles are age-old, yet today’s struggles over inap­ propriate (read: too sexual) dress for girls creates a superb learning opportunity. Schools m ust address culturally driven sexualization of girls and figure out how to create equitable standards of dress for all students.

• Athletic directors wonder how to accom m odate tra n sg e n d er s tu ­ dents in physical education and team sports. The summ er Olym­ pics in Rio provided a vivid educa­ tion in how the binary organiza­ tion of sports serves most athletes

84 I n d e p e n d e n t S c h o o l

MISSION AND OSD FRAMEWORK S C H O O L M IS S IO N G E N D E R A N D S E X U A L IT Y D IV E R S IT Y F R A M E W O R K

IVe are c o m m itte d to w o rkin g w ith the whole child. S tud en ts’ sex, gender, and se xu a lity are e ssen tial p arts o f th e ir w holeness.

The sch o o l p rid e s it s e lf on being a d iverse c o m m u n ity in p a rtn e rs h ip w ith fa m ilie s .

Our c o m m u n ity w elco m e s stu d e n ts, teachers, and p aren ts o f all sexes, genders, and se xualities.

H/e em phasize in te g rity , leadership, d iv e rs ity , and s e rv ic e as w ell as re s p e c t f o r s e lf a n d others.

R especting s e lf and others inclu de s u n d e rs ta n d in g the m any w a ys people express th e ir gender and se xua lity.

\Ne encourag e c o n s tru c tiv e a n d re sponsible g lo b a l citize n sh ip .

A co nte m p o ra ry, expansive u n d e rsta n d in g o f sex, gender, and se xu a lity w ill help s tu d e n ts navigate across c u ltu re s and countries.

Ours is a d ive rse c o m m u n ity th a t balance s the value o f s c h o la rs h ip a n d the in te lle c t w ith the im p o rta n c e o f m e a n in g fu l a n d s u s ta in e d re la tio n sh ip s.

C hallenging gender and se xu a lity bias th ro u g h critica l th in k in g and, in th e co n te xt o f valuable re la tio n sh ip s, builds s k ills and c o m m u n ity.

but not all. For students who are gender fluid, belonging to and competing on a coeducational team such as Ultimate Frisbee provides a nonbinary alternative.

• Boarding schools m u st reckon with residential life policies that still operate on heteronormative assum ptions that all biological females identify and behave like girls, want to date boys, and should live in one dorm, and that all bio­ logical males identify and behave like boys, want to date girls, and should live in another dorm.

• In addition to learning about their own identity, students benefit from a curriculum that provides critical opportunities to explore gender and sexuality across cultures, conti­ nents, and history.

Leading from the Front N A I S w elcom es a n d celebrates th e diver­ sity o f o u r m e m b e r schools; w e expect m e m b e r schools to create a n d s u s ta in diverse, in clu sive, eq u ita b le, a n d j u s t c o m ­ m u n iti e s th a t are safe a n d w e lc o m in g f o r all; w e reco g n ize to do so requires c o m m it­ m e n t, reflection, deliberate p la n n i n g a n d a c tio n , a n d o n g o in g a c c o u n ta b ility.

— NAIS Principles of Good Practice

The field o f education has an opportunity to lead the way in this new era of expansive thinking about hum an identities. Independent schools, in particular, are uniquely positioned to intentionally and fearlessly explore the role of gender and sexuality diversity through the lens of mission, values, and goals. Doing so will provide steady, rational leadership at a time when the needs of school children have been obscured by political debates and legal arguments.

Fortunately, there are many ready vehicles for the work required:

• Offer ongoing professional devel­ opment that allows teachers and staff to learn, reflect, and practice (see sidebar on page 84).

• Use reaccreditation self-study for explicit GSD inquiry.

• Include GSD vision and priorities in the strategic plan.

• Invite students to conduct a GSD audit as part of coursework in sta­ tistics, ethics, or gender studies.

• Develop comprehensive sexuality education that provides GSD scaf­ folding for all students pre-K-12.

Making the GSD paradigm shift will increase pre-K-12 schools’ ability

to achieve their overarching educa­ tional goals. In this time of bigger is better, a little acronym may be just what we need. GSD has fewer letters, but it encompasses everyone, and striving for that kind of equity and inclusivity is a hallmark value of an independent school education.

Jennifer Bryan is a psychologist and educational consultant, specializing in gender and sexuality consultation for pre-K-12 schools (www.teamfinch consultants.com).

N o t e s 1. Joan C. Williams and Kate Massinger, “How

Women Are Harassed Out of Science," The Atlantic, July 2016.

2. Adolescent and School Health, Health Risks Among Sexual Minority Youth, wmv.cdc.gov/ healthyyouth/disparities/smy.htm.

3. Jan Hoffman, “Gay and Lesbian High School Students Report 'Heartbreaking’ Levels o f Violence," The New York Times, August 12, 2016.

4. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Agender.

5. An executive summary of Letting Go of the Binary: Comparing Continuous Versus Categorical Measures of Sex, Gender and Sexuality, 2015, (Jennifer Bryan, Sebastian M. Barr, Christopher Overtree, and Joe Mangine) is available from the author.

W i n t e r 2 0 1 7 85

Copyright of Independent School is the property of National Association of Independent Schools and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.