User:MKMorgan/sandbox

heading
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc dignissim pharetra augue, non consequat est ultrices ac Vivamus ultrices quam dolor, ac laoreet ante fermentum in. Phasellus vitae sem aliquet, feugiat enim eu, pulvinar erat. Sed quis aliquam velit. Donec gravida ligula vitae metus laoreet aliquam. Fusce sodales enim eu eros lacinia scelerisque. Suspendisse nec eleifend neque. Etiam sed aliquet urna. Etiam interdum consectetur rutrum. Etiam non turpis sed sem malesuada commodo. Vestibulum pulvinar diam non quam sollicitudin auctor. Integer varius gravida dui. Donec sollicitudin sapien sed porta volutpat. Fusce nec velit ac turpis mattis tincidunt.

subheading
Vestibulum pretium molestie sem, bibendum tempus tellus cursus ac. Curabitur finibus metus purus, at tempus orci condimentum non. Vestibulum sapien felis, euismod et turpis a, ornare consequat eros. Integer dignissim ligula vel nisl finibus, quis auctor mi placerat. Phasellus iaculis quam vel mauris lacinia elementum. Proin vel ligula sed dui bibendum dapibus ac bibendum libero. Mauris sed tortor quis turpis suscipit ornare. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Etiam ut massa at ligula tristique ornare.

Mauris sed quam feugiat, blandit velit id, hendrerit leo. Phasellus sodales efficitur arcu id gravida. Etiam id mauris condimentum, venenatis felis ut, convallis dui. Morbi gravida arcu sit amet nisi auctor posuere semper placerat velit. Proin a ligula tortor. Sed id sem odio. Suspendisse semper dui non vestibulum porta. Aenean vehicula orci nisl. Nullam ut condimentum augue. Suspendisse felis augue, lobortis faucibus velit non, faucibus pellentesque tortor. Morbi semper consequat dolor suscipit auctor. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos.

Fusce mauris est, suscipit sit amet egestas suscipit, maximus eleifend lorem. Pellentesque lectus leo, egestas quis tempus id, euismod ac nisi. Vivamus maximus non leo ut vehicula. Quisque nec nulla sollicitudin, vulputate felis vehicula, mollis mauris. Proin eu enim ac risus porta mattis. Suspendisse sed iaculis libero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Morbi ligula est, auctor ut velit tincidunt, eleifend pretium massa. Nam mollis egestas aliquam. Proin sem purus, tincidunt vel neque vitae, mollis posuere quam. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Curabitur eget turpis eget libero ullamcorper semper nec a nisl. Nulla congue odio sapien, ut viverra nunc dignissim feugiat. Integer molestie lectus vitae tincidunt lobortis.

In semper tempus nisl, non mollis diam fermentum at. Nam imperdiet risus eget suscipit fermentum. Curabitur imperdiet nisl eu turpis commodo pretium. Nulla interdum, risus sed vulputate dictum, risus eros ornare ex, ac suscipit ligula lorem non leo. Sed in dui maximus tellus ultricies blandit. Nam sollicitudin metus luctus, malesuada leo nec, luctus dolor. Maecenas eleifend a risus id pretium. Nam enim ipsum, porta et nibh et, cursus cursus tortor. Integer faucibus, ex in aliquet mattis, ex dolor congue erat, vitae aliquet felis ligula non sem. In non varius dolor. Praesent pellentesque libero dolor, ac aliquet nibh blandit eu. Maecenas eros turpis, ultricies pretium dui non, egestas sodales enim. Sed pharetra pulvinar est at vulputate. Donec suscipit congue libero vel placerat. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Praesent viverra gravida ligula eget cursus.


 * item one
 * item two
 * item three


 * 1) item one
 * 2) item two
 * 3) item three

hello I want this sentence to show up instead of url

In Western societies, these processes can be traced all the way back to preschool and elementary school learning stages. Research such as May Ling Halim et al.’s 2013 study has shown that children are aware of gender role stereotypes from a young age, with those who are exposed to higher levels of media, as well as gender stereotyped behavior from adults holding the strongest perception of gender stereotypical roles, regardless of ethnicity. Indeed, Sandra Bem’s gender schema theory identifies that children absorb gender stereotypes by observing the behavior of humans around them and then imitate the actions of those they deem to be of their own gender. Thus, if children attain gender cues from environmental stimuli, it stands to reason that the early years of a child’s education are some of the most formative for developing ideas about gender identity and can potentially be responsible for reinforcing harmful notions of disparity in the roles of males and females. Jenny Rodgers identifies that gender stereotypes exist in a number of forms in the primary classroom, including the generalization of attainment levels based upon sex and teacher attitudes towards gender appropriate play.

Hidden curriculum
In her 1978 quantitative study, Katherine Clarricoates conducted field observations and interviews with British primary school teachers from a range of schools located in both rural and urban and wealthy and less wealthy areas. Her study confirms that Rodgers’ assertions about gender stereotypes and discrimination were widely seen in the classrooms. In an extract from one of the interviews, a teacher claimed that it is “subjects like geography…where the lads do come out…they have got the facts whereas the girls tend to be a bit more woollier in most of the things”. Meanwhile other teachers claimed that “they (girls) haven’t got the imagination that most of the lads have got” and that “I find you can spark the boys a bit easier than you can the girls…Girls have got their own set ideas – it’s always ‘…and we went home for tea’… Whereas you can get the boys to write something really interesting…”. In another interview, a teacher perceived gender behavioral differences, remarking “…the girls seem to be typically feminine whilst the boys seem to be typically male…you know, more aggressive... the ideal of what males ought to be”, while another categorized boys as more “aggressive, more adventurous than girls”. When considering Bem’s gender schema theory in relation to these statements, it is not difficult to see how male and female pupils may pick up various behavioral cues from their teachers’ gender differentiation and generalizations which then manifest themselves in gendered educational interests and levels of attainment. Clarricoates terms this bias the “hidden curriculum” as it is deviant from the official curriculum which does not discriminate based on gender. She notes that it arises from a teacher’s own underlying beliefs about gendered behavior and causes them to act in favor of the boys but to the detriment of the girl pupils. This ultimately leads to the unfolding of a self-fulfilling prophecy in the academic and behavioral performances of the students. Citing Patricia Pivnick’s 1974 dissertation on American primary schools, Clarricoates posits that
 * It is possible that by using a harsher tone for controlling the behavior of boys than for girls, the teachers actually foster the independent and defiant spirit which is considered ‘masculine’ in our culture…At the same time, the ‘femininity’ which the teachers reinforced in girls may foster the narcissism and passivity which results in lack of motivation and achievement in girls.

This analysis highlights the lifelong hinderances that the “hidden curriculum” of teachers can inflict on both genders.

Linguistic sexism
Another element of the “hidden curriculum” Clarricoates identifies is linguistic sexism. She defines this term as the consistent and unconscious use of words and grammatical forms by teachers that denigrate women and emphasize the assumed superiority of men, not only in lesson content but also in situations of disciplinary procedure. One example of this she cites is the gendering of animal and inanimate characters. She states that teachers, together with TV presenters and characters as well as curricular materials all refer to dinosaurs, pandas, squirrels and mathematical characters as “he”, conveying to young children that these animals all only come in the male gender. Meanwhile, only motherly figures such as ladybirds, cows and hens are referred to as “she”. As a result, school books, media and curriculum content all give students the impression that females do not create history which contributes to the damaging assumption that females cannot transform the world, whereas men can.

In addition, Clarricoates discusses the linguistic sexism inherent to the adjective choice of teachers when admonishing or rewarding their pupils. She notes that “if boys get out of hand they are regarded as ‘boisterous’, ‘rough’, ‘assertive’, ‘rowdy’ and ‘adventurous’”, whereas girls were referred to as “‘fussy’, ‘bitchy’, giggly’, ‘catty’ and ‘silly’”. From this, she surmises that the terms applied to boys imply positive masculine behavior, meanwhile the categories used for girls are more derogatory. This difference in teachers’ reactions to similar behaviors can again be seen as contributing to the development of gender stereotyped behaviors in young pupils. Another element of linguistic sexism that Clarricoates identifies is the difference in the treatment of male and female pupils’ use of “improper language” by their teachers; girls tended to be censured more harshly compared to boys, due to unconscious biases about gender appropriate behavior. While girls were deemed as “unladylike” for using “rough” speech, the same speech uttered by their male counterparts was regarded as a part of normal masculine behavior, and they were thus admonished less harshly. This creates a linguistic double standard which can again be seen to contribute to long-term gender disparities in behavior.

Clarricoates concludes her study by observing that there is a “catch 22” situation for young female pupils. If a girl conforms to institutional ideals by learning her lessons well, speaking appropriately and not bothering the teacher then her success is downplayed in comparison to the equivalent behavior in a male pupil. Indeed, she is regarded as “passive”, or a “goody-goody” and as “lesser” than her male pupils. As a result, this reinforcement will foster submissiveness and self-depreciation; qualities which society does not hold in great esteem. However, if she does not conform then she will be admonished more harshly than her equivalent male pupils and also be viewed in a more negative light. She will be regarded as problematic and disruptive to the class, which may ultimately impact her academic performance and career prospects in the future. Furthermore, if she is able to survive the school institution as an assertive and confident individual then she will still face many challenges in the workplace, where these characteristics in women are often perceived as “bossy” or “overbearing”.

Dominance of heteronormativity
Rodgers identifies that another challenge to gender equality in the elementary school classroom is the dominance of heteronormativity and heterosexual stereotypes. Citing the research of Guasp, she maintains that heteronormative discourse still remains the norm, both in schools and in wider western society. She notes that gender and heterosexual stereotypes are intrinsically linked, due to expectations of females being sexually attracted to males and vice versa, as part of their gender performance. Thus, one of the major challenges to gender equality is the concealment of sexual diversity under the dominance of heteronormativity. Rodgers identifies that although the 1988 Education Reform Act in the United Kingdom helped to increase opportunities for gender diversity by ensuring that both sexes study the same core subjects, on the other hand, heterosexual stereotyping was exacerbated by the passing of Section 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act, which decreed homosexuality “as a pretended family relationship.” This caused a significant hinderance in the widespread acceptance of homosexuality and thus, the progression of gender equality in schools. Despite the 2003 repeal of this act, the pupils most at risk of discrimination as a result of gender biases in the “hidden curriculum”, are still those who do not conform to gender and heterosexual stereotypes. Indeed, Rodgers cites these teaching approaches as conforming to hegemonic masculinity, and attributes this method to the marginalization of students who do not conform to their stereotypical gender roles.