A SERIOUS BUSINESS: An NUT survey of teachers’ experience of sexism and harassment in schools and colleges
Analysed for the National Union of Teachers by
Dr. S.R.St.J. Neill
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION CONTENTS
SUMMARY...... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3 2. THE SURVEY...... 4 3. THE RESPONDENTS (Appendix II) ...... 5 4. THE EFFECTS OF PHASE ...... 7 5. SEXIST LANGUAGE OVERALL AND BETWEEN PUPILS ...... 8 6. SEXIST BULLYING BY PUPILS OF EACH OTHER...... 9 7. SEXIST LANGUAGE USED BY PUPILS DIRECTED AT TEACHERS ...... 10 8. IMPACT OF SEXIST LANGUAGE ON TEACHERS ...... 11 9. REPORTING SEXIST LANGUAGE...... 12 10. WHAT DO TEACHERS WANT SCHOOLS TO DO ABOUT SEXIST LANGUAGE? ...... 12 11. REASONS FOR NOT REPORTING SEXIST LANGUAGE...... 13 12. SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF TEACHERS BY PUPILS (Appendix IV)...... 14 13. REPORTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT...... 16 14. WHAT DO TEACHERS WANT SCHOOLS TO DO ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT?...... 16 15. REASONS FOR NOT REPORTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT...... 16 16. SEXUAL ASSAULT OF TEACHERS BY PUPILS (Appendices V & VI) ...... 17 17. TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THEIR SAFETY ...... 18 18. HAS SEXIST LANGUAGE AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT GOT WORSE? (Appendix VIII)...... 18 19. MEASURES TO REDUCE SEXIST LANGUAGE (Appendix VII) ...... 18 20. MEASURES TO REDUCE SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF TEACHERS ...... 20 21. MEASURES TO REDUCE SEXUAL ASSAULTS ...... 21 22. SCHOOL POLICIES (Appendix VIII)...... 21 23. EXAMPLES OF SEXIST LANGUAGE COMMONLY HEARD IN SCHOOLS 22 24. COMMUNITY AND PARENTAL ATTITUDES TO WOMEN AND TO FEMALE TEACHERS...... 23 25. SEXUALISATION OF WOMEN AND YOUNG GIRLS IN MEDIA AND POPULAR CULTURE...... 25 26. LESBIAN, GAY AND BISEXUAL RESPONDENTS ...... 25 27. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 28 28. WHAT SHOULD SCHOOLS DO?...... 31 REFERENCES...... 34 APPENDIX I...... 36 APPENDIX II...... 50 APPENDIX III...... 56 APPENDIX IV ...... 59 APPENDIX V ...... 61 APPENDIX VI ...... 62 APPENDIX VII...... 63 APPENDIX VIII...... 68 APPENDIX IX ...... 70 APPENDIX X ...... 74 Acknowledgements
This survey was commissioned by the National Union of Teachers but was produced with complete academic autonomy by the University of Warwick. The Union may disagree with any, or all, of the statements made in this report. The assistance of Rosamund McNeill and John Bangs of the NUT is gratefully acknowledged. SUMMARY
This report is based on nearly 190 responses from a nationally distributed sample of NUT members to a questionnaire on sexist language, sexual harassment and sexual assault and the ways in which institutions currently support staff in dealing with these problems, as well as respondents’ views on how schools should take action against them.
Comparison with similar surveys on unacceptable and disruptive behaviour in general showed that sexist behaviour was a subset of general unacceptable behaviour but one of particular concern to female and younger teachers, who formed a larger proportion of respondents to this survey than the previous surveys of general unacceptable behaviour.
Around half of all respondents to this survey reported that they had witnessed sexist language or sexist bullying. The figures indicated that, where such behaviour occurs, it occurs frequently.
Half of the respondents (49%) recalled hearing sexist language overall and usually such sexist language was from one pupil to another. Over one third (38%) of teachers in the survey witnessed sexist bullying between pupils.
Two-fifths of respondents (39%) had encountered sexist language being directed by pupils at their colleagues although this was, as might be expected, less frequent than hearing sexist language used between pupils or witnessing sexist bullying between pupils.
One in five of the teachers had experienced sexist language being directed at them by pupils during the last term (in 61% of these cases only once). One in twenty of the respondents reported that sexist language is directed at them by pupils at least every week.
A tenth (11%) of respondents reported that they had experienced sexual harassment at some point in their careers and 8 per cent had experienced it within the last 12 months. Fewer than half of teachers are reporting sexist language or incidents of sexual harassment which they experience or witness.
Young female teachers and LGBT teachers were seen as at particular risk by their older and heterosexual colleagues. Both younger and older women respondents identified the fact that women teachers are subjected to comments of a sexual nature by male pupils as a matter of concern which they did not think should be tolerated.
Only about half of serious incidents were reported to senior colleagues; often because the teachers concerned made a professional judgement to deal with them immediately and unaided, but largely because institutional support was seen as unsatisfactory.
Levels of dissatisfaction about the response to reported incidents were similar for sexist language and sexual harassment: many respondents felt senior management did not take these issues seriously. Many respondents felt that sexist and homophobic language was institutionally tolerated and there was wide support for the range of suggested strategies listed in the survey for dealing with such behaviour.
A Serious Business.doc 1 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Despite the requirement for schools to have policies in place for dealing with sexism and homophobia, many respondents were not aware if their schools had instituted such policies. Respondents with over seven years teaching experience were asked if the problems of sexist language and sexual harassment had increased during their teaching careers: they felt both had. Cultural and media influences were seen as contributory to the problem.
Nearly half the respondents (44%) felt very safe, with almost all the remainder feeling safe or fairly safe.
Teachers in schools under notice to improve were more likely to encounter sexist language and sexual harassment from pupils (as overall categories) and were more likely to seek school support in dealing with incidents but less likely, for sexist language, to feel their concerns had been taken seriously.
International comparisons suggest that the problem of sexual harassment is now being seen as extending beyond the original concept of a problem experienced only by women, but also that policies to reduce it are only effective if promoted at the level of individual institutions.
Comments about the weakness of institutional responses to reported events revealed that teachers want anti-bullying policies to refer explicitly to sexism; they want disciplinary processes to be invoked consistently to protect staff; and they want incidents of sexist language and bullying to be recorded in incident books as with racist and homophobic bullying.
Teachers want the sexual and sexist content in verbal abuse to be acknowledged and challenged but do not feel backed up by senior management teams to do this. There are not sufficient opportunities within the curriculum to explore sexism and sexual bullying. Nearly two thirds of teachers believed more effective leadership from the SMT would reduce the levels of dissatisfaction about what happens in practice currently.
At present many schools in the survey were reported to be failing to effectively support their staff and to protect them from sexual harassment and sexist and sexual language from pupils: evidence from other research indicates this contributes to staff stress and diminished working effectiveness. It is therefore in schools’ interests as institutions to support their staff more effectively; current legislative moves to increase the authority of teachers may assist teachers in challenging sexist language and reporting sexual harassment.
All teachers have statutory protection from sexual harassment in the workplace under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Employers are therefore obliged by law to take reasonable steps to prevent and deal with any sexual harassment of teachers by pupils. The findings in this study suggest that schools do not give a high priority to meeting this statutory duty and to taking such steps. They also suggest a low level of awareness among teachers of the existence of this obligation on the part of their employer.
The findings in this study suggest that more needs to be done to promote anti sexist school cultures: the legislative changes which will require schools from April 2007 to positively promote gender equality and to develop a gender equality scheme and action plan are a necessary and over-due requirement. A majority (60%) of respondents in this
A Serious Business.doc 2 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM study supported the value of a whole-school policy on sexism and promoting gender equality.
1. INTRODUCTION
Anderson (2006) has reviewed the way in which thinking about sexual harassment has developed since MacKinnon first developed the concept in 1979. Anderson points out that there are several approaches to thinking about harassment which have different merits and demerits. MacKinnon’s original concept focused on harassment of women by men, as an aspect of male political and economic hegemony (Uggen & Blackstone 2004 cf. Robinson 2005): homophobic harassment and the enforcement of conventional gender roles (for example the harassment of heterosexual men who are not seen as masculine enough or heterosexual women who are seen as unfeminine) can be seen as an extension of this (Anderson 2006).
However Anderson points out that not all potential harassment fits into this pattern.. In Anderson’s view, the workplace differs from other public space in that individuals who are offended cannot easily avoid the offensive situation; she therefore considers it desirable that harassment is not seen purely as an inter- individual matter, where the interests of one individual may conflict with those of another, but an institutional responsibility of the workplace. Harassment, she considers, can lead to economic harm to harassed individuals, who are prevented from taking on work of higher status or pay which they could have otherwise done, and their autonomy and dignity are compromised.
Organisations can also be damaged by harassment; Langout et al. (2005) were chiefly concerned with the aspects of harassment which affected the psychological well-being of victims (in the military), but they found that the subjective experience of distress from harassment, and the experience of harassment, had an even stronger effect on job satisfaction than they did on psychological well-being. Decreased job satisfaction led to much lower organisational commitment and lower reported workgroup productivity. They were also able to show that subjective distress was not related only to the type of harassment but that there was an interaction between the type and frequency of harassment.
Broadly, the impact of behaviour such as sexist wordplay depended on its frequency; when it occurred infrequently, its significance was uncertain and respondents might disregard it; when it was pervasive it was unavoidably oppressive. However other types of behaviour such as unwanted sexual attention were distressing even if infrequent; they were perceived as oppressive regardless of frequency.
Harassment in schools shows many of the same features described for harassment in the adult workplace (Warwick et al. 2004) but is rather different from that in the workplace because of its developmental implications. Nishina & Juvonen (2005), though dealing with harassment in general rather than specifically sexual harassment, showed the detrimental effect of harassment on children’s self-esteem, though witnessing harassment directed to others had some protective effect against subsequent harassment experienced personally because sufferers felt they were not alone. Troop-Gordon & Ladd’s careful
A Serious Business.doc 3 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM developmental study (2005), again focusing on harassment in general, shows that as pre-adolescent children develop more perceptiveness between the ages of 9 and 11, they come to place more differentiated emphasis on the opinions of peers, and adverse opinions have an increased potential for psychological damage. Troop-Gordon & Ladd used a latent growth curve analysis to prove the relationship between treatment received and self-perceptions in later years.
Chambers et al. (2004, cf. Warwick et al. (2004)) found that young teenagers policed each others’ sexuality, with controlling pressure being exerted against females in general and lesbian and gay people in particular, despite a somewhat contradictory view that individuals had the right to freedom in their own sexuality. Chambers et al. thought that the appearance of policing at such a young age was due to the increasing sexualisation of children in society. Pressure to conform to social norms was seen by Robinson (2005) as a powerful force causing harassment at secondary level.
Sexual harassment contributes to higher rates of psychological symptoms among secondary girls than secondary boys (Gillander Gådin & Hammarström 2005, Timmerman 2005), mirroring its effect among older workers (Rospenda et al. 2005). Witkowska & Menckel (2005) reported that Swedish high-school girls who had not personally experienced sexual language or harassment saw these as problems, though those who had been exposed saw most categories as more serious problems than those who had not.
Not surprisingly, Wyss (2004) found that ‘gender nonconforming’ (her expression to cover a range of sexual orientations and self-expressions) American teenagers had suffered very much more severely than their conventional counterparts, including a range of serious physical and sexual assaults which had caused severe psychological damage; Williams et al.’s (2005) findings corroborate this.
Short (2006) explores how policies against peer harassment became widely adopted in the United States through local action by administrators, reacting to pressure in the educational press by activists and to the professional concerns of educators, largely in advance of any formal case-law and despite some opposition from judges who felt it inappropriate to make schools liable for the actions of immature teenagers. She contrasts this rapid adoption in advance of a binding legal requirement to the much slower adoption of workplace anti- harassment policies in the U.S.A.
In the UK, with its more centralised education system, a range of policies, such as Every Child Matters have been introduced in schools by matching central government initiative to inspection by OFSTED (Warwick et al. 2004). However, as discussed in the conclusions, policies do not necessarily translate into beneficial results for staff members.
2. THE SURVEY
The survey (Appendix I) was designed in consultation between the National Union of Teachers and the University of Warwick. It was in five sections, of which the first contained closed questions covering characteristics of the respondents and their institutions.
A Serious Business.doc 4 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM The next three sections dealt respectively with sexist language, sexual harassment and the threat of sexual assault; in each section questions covered whether, how often and where respondents had encountered these behaviours, whether they had asked for support from their institutions, what support had been received, what support respondents felt their institutions should have given, and, if they decided against seeking support, why they had done so.
Each section included space for open-ended comments as well as closed questions. The final section asked whether respondents had suffered actual sexual assault, how safe they felt, whether they felt problems of sexist and sexual behaviour had increased during their teaching experience, and what they felt about a list of policies schools might implement to reduced sexist language, sexual harassment and sexual assault.
A final space allowed open-ended comments about issues not covered, including a request for respondents to list words used as sexist abuse in their institutions.
3. THE RESPONDENTS (Appendix II)
Of 2000 surveys sent out, 189 were returned with usable data, a response rate of 9.5 per cent.
The survey attracted more female respondents (82%) and young teachers (nearly 50% below 40 and 32% with less than 6 years’ service) than similar surveys on other aspects of violence and indiscipline (for Neill (2001) 70% were female, 35% were below 40 and 22% with 6 or less years’ service, for Neill (2005) 61% were female and 26% below 40). The response rates to all three surveys were similar.
In discussing gender and age differences below, it has to be borne in mind that this survey appears to have been completed by a high number of younger, especially female teachers; possible reasons for this are discussed later.
Almost all respondents reported they were heterosexual, and unless indicated otherwise, quotations are from heterosexual respondents; issues in relation to LGBT teachers are discussed below in section 14.
Four-fifths of respondents (79%) were full-time and most were working in primary (47%) or secondary (42%) schools, almost all (93%) co-educational. Most commonly they were on the main scale or in receipt of TLR payment/ management points (37% each).
Very few schools were in special measures (1), under notice to improve (4 – all of the respondents in these were inexperienced teachers with 3-9 years’ service, perhaps because of rapid staff turnover in these schools), or suffering from serious weaknesses (2 – both with less than 3 years’ service, again perhaps of rapid turnover), and under half the respondents knew the proportions of pupils who had SEN or were receiving free school meals. It is perhaps an indication of how the constant relabelling of schools has disconnected staff, that 14 per cent of staff did not know what type of school (community, voluntary aided, academy, CTC etc.) they were working in!
A Serious Business.doc 5 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Teachers in schools under notice to improve were more likely to encounter sexist language and sexual harassment from pupils (as overall categories) and were more likely to seek school support in dealing with incidents but less likely, for sexist language, to feel their concerns had been taken seriously. In one case in a school which was under notice to improve, a pupil’s permanent exclusion for pushing had been overturned by the governors.
Teachers working in schools under notice to improve or in the serious weaknesses category encountered some quite disturbing sexist language:
• One experience which stands out is a 9 year old boy gesturing with hand movements sexual movements whilst verbalising what his hand gestures meant. I overheard this walking down the corridor – it was not directed at me and the boy was talking (loudly enough for me to hear) to another boy. I was shocked to hear a boy of this age using such explicit sexual language and I did report it to my head teacher. (Primary, female, 21-28, school under notice to improve)
• C**t, wan**r, kn*b jockey, big girl’s blouse. (Secondary gay female, 29-39, school in serious weaknesses category )
• Comments similar to “she mustn’t have got any in a while”. “I bet Miss is Lezzie”. Initially no action taken however after other students and staff who had contact with this individual made complaints the [girl] was removed from the group and put in a different lesson. (Secondary, female, 29-39, school under notice to improve)
The last teacher also encountered a physically harassing incident:
• A student pulled his trousers down a little during a class “supposedly” to cool himself on the fan in the room. His boxer shorts were visible when he did this.
However, as will be apparent in following sections, these incidents reported by young teachers were matched by those which occurred to young teachers in schools which were not under any notice to improve or similar measures. However, young teachers may be particularly vulnerable in a failing school if experienced colleagues who could support them are lacking.
It might be expected that gender and age would have an effect on the experiences of respondents, but both potentially interact with phase (i.e. type of school) as primary teachers have a higher proportion of female teachers than secondary schools. Initial analysis showed that in some cases male teachers were reporting more problems that female teachers, contrary to the usually held view of harassment as a problem mainly for women.
However, once both gender and phase were cross-tabulated, it became apparent that men were encountering more problems because more of them were working in secondary schools. It is of course possible that some women avoid working in secondary schools to avoid experiencing harassment, and that this strategy is ‘successful’ in that they are partly able to avoid it.
A Serious Business.doc 6 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Univariate analyses of gender and age showed no significant effects; interaction between gender and phase is discussed below. Bivariate analyses including both gender and age were carried out separately for primary and secondary respondents to allow for the differences between these phases (described in sections 5-12, where reference is made separately to the situation in primary and secondary schools). These analyses usually showed no statistically significant differences for secondary respondents, or for primary respondents where both genders reported a problem – many categories were reported among primary respondents only by females. This suggests that if women are choosing to work in primary schools to avoid harassment, they are not always successful because they, but not men, experience some types of harassment in primary schools.
Respondents were not always consistent in ticking all the answers, or reported on incidents which had occurred outside the time-frame of the survey, so there are some inconsistencies, where the total number of incidents reported is slightly greater or less than those reported on in detail (e.g. in how the incidents were coped with). It seemed better to tolerate these inconsistencies than to interpolate data in cases where respondents had filled in only the closed questions without a commentary on the detailed background.
4. THE EFFECTS OF PHASE
As might be expected and as is amply illustrated in the quotations below, the problems of sexist language, bullying and harassment are characteristic of mainstream secondary schools to a much greater extent than primary schools; the few respondents from sixth-form colleges also reported a much more civilised attitude.
On the other hand staff in PRUs and similar units experienced continual problems, but this was generally accepted as an inevitable if unwelcome aspect of the job:
• Fortunately, sexually abusive language has been used against me very seldom during my twenty year teaching career. Except when I worked at an E.B.D. Special School when it would be used almost constantly. (Secondary, female, 40-49)
• Our pupils are all E.B.D. They use these tactics to engage you in other things rather than do work. Or they are being challenged about their behaviour. (Secondary special, female, 40-49)
• Working in a PRU you anticipate verbal abuse but it seems to be more and more a part of our day to day working life. Some can be desensitised to it, but at times of stress it is demoralising and hurtful. Staff have walked into a room to fetch a chair, book, etc, and come out totally distressed at the torrent of abuse. Police have visited our unit and heard pupils speak to teachers in such a way that they had said that if they had been as verbally abusive in the street they would have been arrested for Public Order offences. (PRU, female, 50-59)
As there were so few respondents in other phases, the statistical analysis concentrates on the primary/secondary divide.
A Serious Business.doc 7 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Firstly, as might be expected, male respondents were significantly concentrated in secondary schools and gender comparisons therefore have to take phase into account.
The overall amounts of sexist language and bullying by pupils, sexist language by pupils to other pupils, sexist bullying by pupils to pupils, and sexist harassment by pupils were significantly greater in secondary schools and the only two cases of threatened sexual assault and single case of actual sexual assault happened in secondary schools.
However though sexist language from pupils to staff (colleagues) and sexist language to the respondent happened more frequently in secondary than primary schools, the differences were not large enough to be statistically significant.
There was also no statistical difference in the tendency of secondary, as opposed to primary, respondents to report hearing sexist language or experiencing sexual harassment.
Although primary schools are often seen as more supportive environments than secondary schools (Neill 2001), teachers in both phases revealed similarly professional attitudes to potential problems and there was no evidence of primary teachers relying more heavily on support from peers or colleagues than their secondary colleagues.
The interaction between phase and gender raises some difficulties of interpretation. For example, some aspects of sexist language (for example overhearing sexist language between pupils) are actually experienced more commonly by male than female respondents, but this difference over the sample as a whole is misleading. It occurs because male respondents are concentrated in secondary schools where the problem is more severe; as discussed below for individual behaviours, male teachers in secondary schools did not suffer more serious problems than their female colleagues, and often male teachers in primary schools did not encounter a problem at all (in some cases this may be merely a chance effect because there are fewer of them).
As a statistical check, partial correlations controlling for phase (primary / secondary) showed no significant gender differences. In the following sections, primary and secondary results are reported on separately, with comments from other settings where appropriate. Detailed figures for primary and secondary respondents are in Appendices IX and X.
5. SEXIST LANGUAGE OVERALL AND BETWEEN PUPILS
Half (49%) the respondents had experienced sexist language (overall category) (detailed figures for this and the following questions are in Appendix III).
In primary schools female teachers experienced overall sexist language significantly more than their male colleagues (26 out of 77 women, none out of 9 men) but there was no difference for secondary teachers.
A Serious Business.doc 8 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Usually (48% of all respondents) the sexist language experienced was from one pupil to another. When it occurred, this was a frequent problem: two-thirds of respondents who encountered sexist language between pupils encountered it once a week or more, with a fifth of them encountering it daily.
There was no statistical difference between the experiences of male and female secondary teachers in how much sexist language between pupils they encountered: only female primary teachers experienced sexist language between pupils - male primary respondents did not report this problem.
6. SEXIST BULLYING BY PUPILS OF EACH OTHER
Fewer respondents (38%) encountered sexist bullying between pupils (as compared to hearing sexist language used by pupils towards each other).
It was less frequent than sexist language with 59% of those who did encounter it doing so ‘once a month or less often’. Again there was no significant gender difference for secondary respondents, so that female and male secondary teachers experienced similar amounts of sexist bullying between pupils, and only female primary respondents experienced sexist bullying between pupils; male primary respondents did not report encountering such sexist bullying.
In some cases, especially in primary schools, the language which was reported by respondents could be categorised as ‘gender stereotyping’ rather than behaviour which constitutes overt bullying:-
• On discussing different sports, one “cocky” boy of 9 years old told me that I shouldn’t do Judo because it’s a boys’ sport. We followed his comment with lots more “enlightening” discussion and excellent writing after further research. Education of the child as to suitability of his attitudes was already in progress. He had challenged girls in football team already and the deputy head was “talking to him”. (Primary, female, 40-49)
• ‘Ignorant’ comments from young children – e.g. ‘Those are “girls’’ toys – you can’t play with them’ (Primary, female, 29-39)
• Young children may inherently have ideas of traditional roles e.g. police are always men, cooks always women. They can use this in the classroom especially in role play situations….[I] explain how traditional ideas/roles can be / have been changed.
However, in other cases, primary-school sexist language certainly can be seen to constitute sexist bullying:
• Mentions/threats of rape by boys to girls – in one case a Y3 child was subject to this term/threat when a Y6 boy told the Y3 child that a gang of boys wanted to rape her. (Primary, female, 29-39)
• Typical language is “big tits” giggling & smirking at girls who wear bras. I should say that I have, 3 years ago, moved to a rural area where the incidence of this type of behaviour is very much less (almost non-existent)
A Serious Business.doc 9 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM than in the town schools where I have spent most of my teaching career. (Primary, female, 50-59)
• KS2 pupils using sexist language towards each other (particularly girls) following a falling out – usually in the playground. My school is in a very economically deprived area and children often use derogatory terms, such as “slag” etc. in anger towards other children without true knowledge of the meaning or implications of what they are saying. They are simply repeating language they have heard used around them, which they realise is derogatory, but do not understand why this is so. (Primary, female, 60+)
• Children insulting each other by targeting their mothers in a derogatory manner. Male pupils becoming less respectful of female staff, especially as there is minimal male backing in a primary school. This can be attributed to a higher incidence of single parent children who are staying with their mother and have less respect for women. (Primary, female, 60+)
Similar sexist language which can be considered sexist bullying occurred also in secondary schools:
• Heard this year: ‘Her arse would look big in anything. Nice tits’. Pupils often let slip the ‘f’ word within earshot. Colleagues use ‘f’ word in staffroom occasionally. New game: ‘Sack Tapping’ – which means whacking boys’ genitalia! (Ours is a very well-behaved rural school and they seem to respect others in the main). (Secondary, female, 40-49)
• Students’ discussion about people being ‘fit’ or otherwise. Constant innuendo. Students touching each other inappropriately. (Secondary, female, 21-28)
• Most significant is girl on girl sexist language which emanates from current trends in music particularly words like bitch, slapper and daily comments about the reinforcement of female stereotypes particularly about their relationships.(Secondary girls-only, female, 50-59)
• A boy in Y8 said a girl would not guess the answer as she was blonde, I asked him to justify himself & mentioned the fact that his sister and mother were both blonde, was he calling them thick? Are all blondes thick? NO, just the girls. I brought it up at a parents evening! And we laughed about it and the boy said he didn’t think blondes were dizzy anymore. (Secondary, female, 21-28)
7. SEXIST LANGUAGE USED BY PUPILS DIRECTED AT TEACHERS
Two-fifths of respondents (39%) had encountered sexist language from pupils to staff (i.e. colleagues of the respondent). This was relatively infrequent (once a month or less in 69% of cases where it was encountered).
Once again it was female primary respondents who encountered sexist language being directed by pupils to their colleagues; male primary teachers did not report such language. There were once again no gender differences between female and male secondary respondents.
A Serious Business.doc 10 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Direct sexist language from pupils to the respondent was less frequent, with 21 per cent having encountered it during the last term, in 61 per cent of these cases only once: 5 per cent of all respondents experienced sexist language directed at them once a week or more.
Again there were no gender differences among the 25 secondary respondents who encountered this problem, and at primary level only female respondents encountered it.
8. IMPACT OF SEXIST LANGUAGE ON TEACHERS
Respondents were asked to describe the most significant incident applying to them in their own words, and to indicate where this incident happened.
Incidents happened most often in classrooms (52% of reported incidents), corridors and playgrounds (24% and 16% of reported incidents respectively); other locations accounted for only small numbers of incidents. These locations are consistent with those reported by Jennett (2004).
Perpetrators were overwhelmingly (88%) male.
• Pupils lack of respect for elders, including: teachers, staff, etc. Abusive language a frequent attribute of children’s everyday speech. (Primary, female, 21-28)
• Boys in my class laughing and gesturing that they have breasts when I teach them P.E. (Primary, female, 21-28)
• Particular pupil making sexual comments about me and my appearance. The pupil would make out that it was done in ‘jest’ but these comments made me feel very uncomfortable and embarrassed to deal with him in the classroom. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
• Walking past a group of Yr10 boys to hear ‘is that the teacher you had in the cupboard?’ Recently joined my first school, group of Asian 6th form boys began wolf whistling and hissing at me then a few, maybe 3 shouted ‘I’ll do ya!”, “You’d get it!” (Secondary, female, 21-28)
• Comments about myself such as “it must be difficult for any man to live with her” or “how did anybody marry her?” (Secondary, female, 50-59)
• Most significantly pupils directed sexist abuse at one another both in and out of lessons, particularly abusive name calling / inappropriate use of body language and taunts which are sexual in nature. Have had inappropriate sexual remarks made towards myself by both genders. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
• In a previous Hampshire school sexism and sexual harassment was very common from pupils towards teachers, however there are very few incidents of this kind [here]. (Sixth-form college, female, 21-28)
A Serious Business.doc 11 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM • Very often it is derogatory language used – have been called ‘scroat’, ‘bitch’ ‘stupid cow’, ‘nag’. In particular 4 year 11 boys surrounded me at end of lesson to say I was [missing, but implies the insults above]. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
• A pupil in a maths group told me that I could do nothing about his behaviour because I was weak and he implied very strongly that this was because I am female. He told me that he would come and spit in my face because I was a silly cow. The pupil later went on to assault a male member of staff and as the police were involved he was put into reintegration. (Secondary, female, 29-29)
• A Year 12 pupil who I had verbally reprimanded in the lesson wrote down on a piece of paper “ginger pussy stinks”. I sent him out for not working + found this on his desk. Only after support from my NUT rep was he removed from the course – his parents fully supported this. Previously the Head had insisted that I continued to teach him: I refused. This was about 5 years ago. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
9. REPORTING SEXIST LANGUAGE
Respondents were asked how, if they reported ‘this’ incident (i.e. the most significant incident described in the respondent’s own words), was the report addressed?
Fewer than half the respondents who had experienced a significant incident of sexist language (41%) reported it; reasons why the majority did not are discussed more fully below.
Exactly half the 18 female primary respondents who had experienced an incident reported it; 14 out of the 34 secondary respondents did so, with no significant gender difference.
Of the 25 who reported an incident, 12 thought their concerns were taken very seriously, with the rest having a range of less satisfied views. Similarly, most thought that the outcome of the action taken by the school was only fairly satisfactory (9) or had mixed views (6).
The most common responses undertaken by schools were follow-up action taken with the perpetrator (15 cases), contacting the parents (10 cases) and logging the incident (11 cases); in 7 cases other action was taken but in 3 cases the school took no action.
Only 3 respondents raised the issue as a grievance.
10. WHAT DO TEACHERS WANT SCHOOLS TO DO ABOUT SEXIST LANGUAGE?
Respondents who were dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint often mentioned several actions which the school could have taken, most commonly that:
A Serious Business.doc 12 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM • the school behaviour policy should have been pursued to the extent of exclusion (8 respondents);
• the sexual content in verbal abuse should be recognised and challenged; and
• that sexism and sexual bullying should be explored through the curriculum (6 respondents each).
Respondents also felt anti-bullying policies should refer explicitly to sexism; that the disciplinary process should be invoked in respect of staff; and that sexist language/ bullying should be recorded in an incident book. The following comments were given:
• Pupils very seldom use sexist language towards me, probably because they realise that I won’t accept it and will follow it up. However, what does often happen is that they refer to me as “she” in a very rude and derogatory tone when I have to call for Snr. Staff support. This is often a situation involving a boy speaking to a male teacher. Astoundingly, very often the teacher concerned does not challenge this which I feel affirms the student’s poor attitude. (Secondary, female, 40-49)
• Colleagues need to inform staff of the action taken – too often action is taken but the member of staff involved is never told. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
• Head has bullying tendencies – esp towards women. Tried to intimidate me (verbally + by “staring down”) to change my opinion on punishment for a pupil who had verbally abused me. Given my age + character the Head failed in this ploy – but such behaviour could (+ does) intimidate younger colleagues. (Secondary, female, 40-49)
11. REASONS FOR NOT REPORTING SEXIST LANGUAGE
Respondents were asked, if they did not report incidents, to explain why not.
The last quotation in section 10 indicates one common set of reasons for respondents not reporting incidents – that respondents lacked confidence that their line manager or the SMT would take action. 9 of the 34 respondents who did not report incidents gave this as the reason: 8 of the 34 respondents said that they did not report incidents because their school/college took no action to confront sexist language.
• It would not be taken seriously and you would be labelled as unreasonable. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
However, more respondents (25) reported that their professional judgement was to deal with the incident directly, even in some quite severe cases:
• I spoke to the pupils concerned. (Primary, female, 40-49)
A Serious Business.doc 13 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM • Student with statement of SEN / ASD / EBD – as SENCO I considered that the appropriate way to deal with the situation [inappropriate and threatening language, including sexist terms. “you f------bitch, ---- stupid pathetic woman” with accompanying threatening body language used by a Yr11 student when told to stop using a computer] was to tell the student to leave the room (SEN base at lunchtime) in order to calm down. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
The latter quote is an example of staff making allowances for pupils with special educational needs or learning disabilities and shows a parallel with the respondent (in the next section) who dealt with an incident of sexual harassment herself.
Some respondents also indicated that their judgement was that the incident did not need to be reported (13 cases).
In 6 cases, teachers reported that they were too busy to report it.
12. SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF TEACHERS BY PUPILS (Appendix IV)
Harassment tended to be verbal and some incidents reported by respondents under the section on harassment were similar to those reported in the previous section as sexist language directed at respondents themselves.
Twenty respondents (11%) reported that they had experienced harassment at some point in their careers with 15 (8%) experiencing it in the last 12 months.
These respondents were overwhelmingly female and in secondary schools (12 of the total; both primary respondents were female), but the numbers were too small to be statistically significant.
Of the 15 who had suffered harassment during the last year, five had experienced harassment more than five times in the last year and one was experiencing it daily.
As for sexist language, classrooms (10 cases) and corridors (5 cases) were the most frequent locations, with almost all perpetrators being male.
Unfortunately, not all respondents described their most significant incident, so we do not have detailed accounts of some incidents which appeared from the closed questions to be of particular interest.
Incidents might be specific comments or insults on clothing or appearance:
• Only experienced once from an ex-pupil outside of school environment, reference was made to breasts (shouted in through pub door). Fortunately I was with a male (and other female) staff who at the nearest opportunity (following day / morning) reported (agreed by myself) incident to head teacher and then to ex-pupil’s parents (head teacher very supportive as were parents). (Primary, female, 29-39)
A Serious Business.doc 14 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM • Students commenting about cleavage or that they can see knicker line etc. Then saying what they think of that. Comments about clothing. (Secondary, female, 21-28)
• One pupil who was known to be disrespectful of females made explicit comments – I cannot recall precisely what they were but I do recall that I told other staff that if they had been made to me in the pub I’d have called the police. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
• Personal comments about the way I dress, “You are looking fit miss!” (Secondary, female, 50-59)
The last incident, though ostensibly complimentary, was clearly seen as an unwanted proposition identified by the respondent as harassment. Such incidents were identified as a problematic type of behaviour especially for younger female staff working with the older pupil age-groups.
Obviously any teacher who acted on such ‘propositions’ would be liable to dismissal for inappropriate conduct. This may or may not be realised by the perpetrators but it is clear that that students are aware of their power to make teachers uncomfortable and undermined by making comments of either a sexual or sexist nature.
Respondents reported being subjected to attention of a sexual nature:
• As a young teacher in secondary school found notes of sexual nature addressed to me. (Primary, female, 50-59)
• Happened when first became teacher – wolf whistling in corridors. (Secondary, female, 29-29)
• A yr 13 boy asked me if I would go home with him. I told him he was being very inappropriate & never to say things like that again. (Secondary, female, 21-28)
• Real issue for young female teachers in all-boys schools – now I am old / established, less so! (Secondary, female, 50-59)
• Younger male & female teachers seem to be seen as “fair game” to some pupils to touch, in some cases and to make sexual innuendo towards. There is more evidence of sexual bullying and harassment than of sexist language.., though there have been times where pupils make assumptions about unmarried males or females. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
• In adult education- comments in classroom; waiting for me after lessons; following me to car park; ringing me at home (Secondary, female, 50-59)
Other examples were verbal or non-verbal insulting behaviour (e.g. inappropriate closeness or display):
• Being shouted at and called names like “Fucking Whore”. Trying to intimidate me. (Secondary special, female, 40-49)
A Serious Business.doc 15 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM • Not recently – now I do supply – most threatening body language – towering over, deliberately leaning in etc. (Primary and secondary supply, female, 60+)
13. REPORTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT
As was the case for sexist language, fewer than half the respondents (8) had reported it; the reasons for not reporting harassment were similar to those for not reporting sexist language.
There was no significant gender difference in reporting by secondary respondents, and no male primary respondents reported having experienced sexual harassment.
In three cases no action was taken; in the other five follow-up action was taken with the pupil, and there was an investigation by the head teacher/SMT in three cases; parents were contacted in two cases and the incident logged in 2 cases.
Not surprisingly half the respondents (4) felt that the outcome was not at all satisfactory and that their concerns about sexual harassment were not taken at all seriously; the others mostly had mixed views.
None of the respondents raised the incident as a grievance.
Overall, possibly because harassment was seen as a more serious issue than sexist language, respondents were less satisfied with the way in which it had been treated.
14. WHAT DO TEACHERS WANT SCHOOLS TO DO ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT?
As was the case for sexist language, the commonest response (3 cases) was that the behaviour policy should have been pursued up to the point of excluding the pupil concerned. Two respondents thought the disciplinary procedure should be invoked.
Single respondents thought that harassment should be recorded in an incident book; that sexual content in harassment should be recognised and challenged; that harassment should be explored through the curriculum; that anti-bullying policies should refer to it explicitly; and that other action should be taken.
• Student should have been made to apologise and accept responsibility. Should then have been monitored / followed up. (Secondary, female, 29- 39)
15. REASONS FOR NOT REPORTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT
The pattern of reasons for not reporting the incident were similar to those for sexist language.
A Serious Business.doc 16 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Six respondents reported that their professional judgement was to deal with the incident directly and 5 that their professional judgement was that it did not need to be reported – but lack of institutional support was relatively more important.
Lack of confidence that the line manager or SMT would take action was reported in five cases: fear of being ridiculed or trivialised, feeling embarrassed or uncomfortable in discussing it and the school/college taking no action to reduce sexual harassment were reported in three cases each.
So far as can be judged from this small sample, lack of support is more salient for sexual harassment than it is for sexist language. Respondents feel more let down by the system when it fails to support them over experiences which they cannot disregard because of an explicit threat to their safety or self-worth.
• Teachers in night schools have no real support systems (Secondary, female, 50-59)
16. SEXUAL ASSAULT OF TEACHERS BY PUPILS (Appendices V & VI)
Two cases were reported of sexual threats, one in the corridor and one outside the school; both were by boys to young women teachers.
An incident which had occurred in the last twelve months had not been reported and had been dealt with directly:
• A student I was reprimanding said something about grabbing my breasts. I heard him and challenged him. He denied it, then said he was talking to his friend. This comment made him look ridiculous and his two friends made fun of him so I just left it at that. I felt I’d made my point and this result made me feel empowered, and he knew I could have made more of it and didn’t. His behaviour since towards me has been fine. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
Another incident had happened away from the school site:
• Not in school but it has happened outside of school by a young boy. (Secondary, female, 21-28)
As with incidents of sexist language and sexual harassment there seems to have been a lack of institutional support to these teachers following instances of threats of sexual assault.
One incident of sexual assault was reported, again by a boy to a young woman teacher:-
• But only one, in my first year or so of teaching – a boy pinched my bum. I responded very forcefully – told him never to do such a thing again – he apologized and no similar recurrence. I didn’t report him because was aware of possible “fuss” that could ensue. I think that over-reaction to things like this can damage young, teenaged boys. (Secondary, female, 40-49)
A Serious Business.doc 17 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM This reaction characterises the calm and professional approach taken even to serious physical incidents.
17. TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THEIR SAFETY
Nearly half the respondents (44%) felt very safe, with almost all the remainder feeling safe (24 %) or fairly safe (27%).
No respondents answered ‘not safe at all’; 2 per cent of respondents felt ‘not very safe’. There was a difference between heterosexual and LBGT respondents which is discussed below.
Many respondents had been working less than 10 years as teachers so were unable to answer a question as to whether they felt more or less safe about their workplace than 10 years ago.
Out of those respondents who answered this comparative question, 54 per cent felt less safe than they did 10 years ago. The remaining 46 per cent believed that they were safer or that safety levels had not changed.
18. HAS SEXIST LANGUAGE AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT GOT WORSE? (Appendix VIII)
Respondents were asked to answer only if they had at least seven years’ teaching experience. About a third of respondents, mostly younger teachers, therefore did not answer these questions, which were about sexist language and sexual harassment.
Out of the respondents that had taught for seven years or longer, over half (52%) thought sexist language had got worse: 22 per cent of these experienced teachers reported that it had not.
Of these respondents 31 per cent thought sexual harassment had got worse, with 22 per cent again thinking it had not. As might be expected from the relative infrequency of harassment, 47 per cent did not know if it had got worse or not.
19. MEASURES TO REDUCE SEXIST LANGUAGE (Appendix VII)
Respondents were asked what strategies would reduce sexist language in schools/colleges.
The most effective of the suggested strategies was thought to be explicit reference to sexist language in anti-bullying policies and harassment policies (66% of all respondents agreed).
This was followed in popularity by the need for strategic leadership from the SMT (62% agreed – a sharp contrast to the levels of dissatisfaction with support in practice, and supported by some of the measures listed in the following paragraph).
Other measures supported by a majority of respondents were strategies to recognise and challenge sexual content within verbal abuse (60%); training for
A Serious Business.doc 18 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM school governors and SMT on understanding of sexism and gender equality (59%); recording incidents in an incident book (55%); and INSET on gender equality and suitable strategies (52%).
Many of the respondents supported using single-sex groupings to explore sensitive issues (39%). This is an interesting finding in light of the current debates about the value of single sex classes in terms of raising self esteem of young girls and encouraging them to take subject options which are non gender-typical.
Respondents also suggested that it was necessary for schools to adopt a zero tolerance approach to sexism:
• My experience is that a policy has to be agreed, & then followed consistently by all staff and treated seriously by SMT if it is to be effective in any way at all. (Primary, female, 50-59)
• Use same format as for safer recruitment i.e. refer to anti-sexist policies in job advertisements. Pupils / staff to sign contracts stating they will not be sexist (and racist!) which can be used as part of disciplinary proceedings. (Primary, male, 40-49)
• It’s about confronting sexist language + not coming up with more policies + reports to fill in. (Secondary, female, 21-28)
• Should be picked up and acted upon as soon as possible with pupils – deal with straight away – how would they feel if sexist language was directed at them usually works. Repeat offenders – involve parents and, if necessary police (we have one in school). (Secondary, female, 50-59)
Respondents also suggested a variety of other measures to engage young people themselves, their and parents and the wider community in recognising and challenging sexist language:
• Pupil self advocacy – pupils involved in developing solutions & being involved in the development of policies to combat this type of discrimination. School councils, peer mediation, pastoral support + good quality PSHE incorporating equality issues. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
• Inset for students!! Really, this is a much larger problem because sexist language has become acceptable outside of the most politically correct. (Secondary, male, 29-39)
• Engage parents/carers – ensure they know school’s policy re sexual harassment/language & understand the consequences for students who use this sort of language. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
The level of problem was also seen as specific to particular groups of pupils or particular school settings:
• Sexist language is the first refuge of angry challenged pupils who need to vent their frustration – other coping strategies for these pupils may help some. (Secondary, male, 29-39)
A Serious Business.doc 19 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM • Post 16 teaching allows for an environment where students feel comfortable “coming-out” without / minimising fear of harassment if the above [the listed measures to reduce sexist language] are regarded as important by staff lead. (Sixth-form college, female, 40-49)
20. MEASURES TO REDUCE SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF TEACHERS
The pattern of responses to this set of questions was similar to the previous set; inspection of the questionnaires showed that many respondents had closely matched views, though some differentiated their responses to the two sets of questions. In general support for the measures was high, though they were seen as less effective in dealing with the problem of harassment than that of sexist language.
Again the most effective of the suggested strategies was thought to be explicit reference to sexual harassment in anti-bullying policies and harassment policies (62% of all respondents agreed) followed by strategic leadership from the SMT (60% agreed).
Other measures supported by a majority of respondents were strategies to recognise and challenge sexual content within verbal abuse (60%); training for school governors and SMT on understanding of sexism and gender equality (52%); and recording incidents in an incident book (54%).
Just under half of respondents supported INSET on gender equality and suitable strategies (47%) and more than one in three of the respondents supported using single-sex groupings to explore sensitive issues (36%).
Respondents advocated the need for whole-school strategies to prevent and respond to sexual harassment by pupils:
• Zero tolerance for this behaviour – at least fixed term exclusion, involve police – meeting with parents / carers. Teach students what sexual harassment means – through PSE time etc. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
• Whole gut policy to tackle homophobia and sexual harassment which is monitored by Ofsted. (Secondary, female, 21-28)
• Clearly defined sanctions & effective follow through & consistency of approach. (Secondary, female, 40-49)
Some respondents highlighted the treatment of women outside schools and the discrimination they face and identified this as a factor contributing to negative attitudes within schools:
• If sexually incited / related crimes in [the] community were successfully dealt with (i.e. rape cases) this would send a message to students / young people that such acts were wrong. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
• Not accepting sexual harassment in school, by the whole school community. (Primary supply, female, 29-39)
A Serious Business.doc 20 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM 21. MEASURES TO REDUCE SEXUAL ASSAULTS
Respondents considered curriculum measures were most likely to be effective: preventative education within PHSE about all forms of violence against women was thought effective by 64 per cent of respondents (though a few pointed out that education was also needed about violence against men).
A majority (60%) of respondents supported the value of a whole-school policy on sexism and promoting gender equality.
More than half the respondents (52%) thought that strategic leadership from the SMT would be effective.
More instrumental measures were seen as less effective; 45 per cent supported the use of panic buttons/alarms and 22 per cent considered security personnel would be effective.
The potential value of a positive school ethos is discussed by respondents in the following comments:
• Opening up the issue(s). Counselling available for victims and ‘bullies’. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
• An active school ethos of equality and whole staff working together to change attitudes. (Secondary, female, 21-28)
• It is about promoting equality culture through all aspects of school. Think male staff have major role to play in not promoting sexual stereotypes/ engaging in sexist language. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
These comments indicate how teachers consistently use their professional judgement in order to protect themselves from risk:
• Never be alone with a boy or girl in a classroom in case wrongful accusations of any kind could be made. (Secondary, female, 60+)
• Staff being informed of students with violent backgrounds or with records of harassment and procedures put into place to reduce risks. CCTV in isolated parts of campus. (Sixth-form college, male, 29-39)
• All pupils to be aware that any incidents will be reported to the police. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
22. SCHOOL POLICIES (Appendix VIII)
Four-fifths (81%) of respondents knew that their schools had a whole school equal opportunities policy (18% did not know or did not answer this question).
Only 25 per cent of respondents knew that their institution had a pupil behaviour policy covering sexual harassment and bullying and 20 per cent said their institution had a workplace policy covering sexual harassment and bullying.
A Serious Business.doc 21 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM A striking aspect of the latter two questions was how many, especially younger, teachers, did not know or did not answer the questions about whether their school had a pupil behaviour policy covering sexual harassment and bullying and a workplace policy covering sexual harassment and bullying – 49 per cent and 59 per cent respectively! It has to be assumed in such cases that respondents did not know because there was no policy, but if policies exist, they are certainly not being publicised to new recruits to the staff.
23. EXAMPLES OF SEXIST LANGUAGE COMMONLY HEARD IN SCHOOLS
Some respondents listed (as requested) the words used as sexist abuse in their school. Respondents were invited to use asterisks to describe swear words. The following language was encountered by primary respondents:
• From very young children such language as you fucking c*nt (to each other, hasn’t been used to staff yet). (No details given)
• KS2 pupils using sexist language towards each other (particularly girls) following a falling out – usually in the playground. My school is in a very economically deprived area and children often use derogatory terms such as “slag” etc. in anger towards other children without true knowledge of the meaning or implications of what they are saying. They are simply repeating language they have heard around them, which they realise is derogatory, but do not understand why this is so. (Primary, female, 60+)
However, as might be expected, language which was very derogatory about women and female pupils was even more prevalent among adolescents in secondary schools:
• Commonly used words – eg. shouted out in corridors & playground – “pu**y” “cu*t” “bi*ch” (Secondary, female, 40-49)
• Gay, queer, slut, slag, whore, bitch, w*nker, c*nt, lesbo, slapper, sheep- shagger. (PRU, female, 50-59)
• Perv, w*nker, c*nt, homo, ginger, totty. (Secondary special, female, 50-59)
• Gay – biggest with boys; slag; cow; bitch; scroat. (Secondary, female, 29- 39)
• The words commonly used are “shag” and “f*ck” among of boys discussing what they’d like to do to any female they fancy – will even call out to girls “Come on, give us a fuck (or shag)” (Secondary female, 50-59).
• Wide range of sexual language usually student/student, ‘fuck you’, ‘motherfucker’, ‘shag your mum’. Swearing / sexual language in Urdu. Pupils will say if other pupils swear at staff in Urdu. This happens frequently (according to pupils). (Secondary, male, 50-59)
Some of the language described by respondents identifies how boys of secondary age use derogatory and sexually explicit insults about their peers’
A Serious Business.doc 22 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM mothers or female relatives as a way to bully and insult each others’ masculinity and standing within the group:
• ‘Sket’ – meaning slag, gay, batty boy, slag, bitch, tramp, poof, ‘your mum’s pussy’, slut, ‘tight’ meaning frigid, ‘easy’ meaning sexually promiscuous, c—t, twat, prick, your mum, ‘I’m your uncle’, ‘I’ve f--- your mum / your sister’ also sexual words in other languages which are known to all kids. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
• Monkey face – black – honky – homo – Nazi – towards a lad born in Germany with British forces. Prejudiced remarks about immigrants. Insulting mothers is very pejorative. She’s a slag, about female pupils. Reference to a boy having intercourse with another boy’s mother (untrue of course but very nasty). “She’s dirty she told me she lets boys touch her” said one girl of another; I suspected jealousy as the motive as the girl referred to is very pretty. (Secondary, female, 60+)
• Generally pupils at our school use a lot of sexual language. Pupils regularly insult one another by saying the “f*uck their mother” “lick **’s piss flaps” “suck c*ck” and other such comments. The school tend to adopt a “well, what do you expect from their background” attitude and I feel too much is accepted but is now so widespread that it would take all lesson to deal with everything fully. I now adopt an approach of discussing the inappropriateness of the language with individuals and following up if no improvement made. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
24. COMMUNITY AND PARENTAL ATTITUDES TO WOMEN AND TO FEMALE TEACHERS
The comment about swearing in Urdu relates to an issue raised in some of the specific comments quoted earlier. Differences in cultural expectations between some groups and the impact of this on school culture were discussed by some of the respondents:
• I work in a diverse Junior school outside of London. A large number of Turkish students attend the school. It is my feeling as well as that of many of my colleagues that a majority of these boys hold little respect for female teachers and neither do their parents. They are not supportive to female teachers and often believe what the student says over the teacher. (Primary, female, 21-28)
• Group of boys of a particular religion not doing what asked and I was told ‘we don’t have to listen, our religious leader says’! (Primary, female, 21- 28)
• When I worked in a 95% Muslim school in Bradford there was an air of male superiority among students. I cannot recall a specific incident. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
• Re: Muslim Asian girls – this group is frequently subjected to “unfriendly” attitudes from both boys & girls if they fail to conform to certain norms. For
A Serious Business.doc 23 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM example, if they don’t want to wear a headscarf. (Secondary, female, 40- 49)
The respondents’ views reflect parallel desires to respect the religious beliefs of the communities in which their schools were situated and to challenge discrimination, and stereotyping of, women and young girls where they find it.
Lack of community backing for educators is by no means confined to groups of certain religions or faiths; parental lack of support for the school among the white population was mentioned by a number of respondents to the 2001 survey on unacceptable behaviour (Neill 2001) and it recurs here:
• Male parent “hinting” that their child’s behaviour wouldn’t be quite the way it is (poor behaviour / challenging) if there was a male teacher for the class (completely untrue + proved every PPA time which male teacher takes class – if anything child’s behaviour worse! In previous school (Manchester) threatening behaviour (not sexual) from parent (male) very intimidating – acting head teacher barred him from school premises. (Primary, female, 29-39)
• Have not personally experienced problems as I teach Y1s but have had to exclude parents from playground due to bad language. Pupils seem to swear and use sexist language as normal conversation more today than when I began teaching – parents / tv examples? (Primary, female, 50-59)
• This is a ‘typical’ ‘middle England’ school – low % of students from minority (ethnic) groups. Local ‘culture’ sees little wrong in using sexually inappropriate language. Some parents are poor role models – students imitate language & behaviour at home. Not all parents are supportive of sanctions against sexual language. Worryingly girls seem to accept sexist language by boys as the norm! and also some incidents of sexual harassment. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
Lack of respect for teachers’ authority, and the climate created by the widely- reported cases of teachers being accused (often falsely) of molesting children, concerned some respondents:
• Students are aware of their rights but not their responsibilities. Cases of students saying to both male & female staff that they’ll say the teacher has hit / touched them & other students saying they’d support their friend v. teacher – patently untrue. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
• The most common concern is related to pupils questioning your sexuality, usually with the intention of causing embarrassment. More recently a worrying trend to accuse all teachers of paedophilia is beginning to occur. My own limited experience is not entirely worrying but I have been referred to as “Paedo” merely because I sat next to a female student to help her. This is a very worrying development for all teachers. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before a teacher who deals with this nonsense finds themselves in a very unfortunate situation. (Secondary, male, 29-39)
A Serious Business.doc 24 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM 25. SEXUALISATION OF WOMEN AND YOUNG GIRLS IN MEDIA AND POPULAR CULTURE
The atmosphere in schools of tolerating and normalising sexism and sexual language was seen by respondents as partly due to a greater emphasis on sexuality in the media and in goods for children. Comments included:
• Less sexist material on TV / media / at home! (Secondary, female, 40-49)
• Put Sunday Sport / lads mags on top shelf. Desexualise children’s merchandise – Playboy logo on stationery – sexually suggestive images / slogans on girls’ clothes etc. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
• American gangster rap is often popular with students as are sexist magazines such as Nuts and Loaded, while these aren’t sold on campus newspapers such as The Sun are…Girls often have Playboy pencil cases, bags, T-shirts or even tattoos. I think this reflects a wider problem in society. (Sixth-form college, male, 29-39)
• If society itself lacks respect (for women or men) then we haven’t much hope in schools. However I teach in a school (small village primary) where we care for and respect each other, staff and pupils alike. We have to set the example! (Female, 50-59)
• Same old stereotypes and language!! Photo and staff comments made by male assistant head. [The local newspaper photo recreated a 1968/9 ‘group of girls daring to bare in miniskirts’; the staff comment was “We have taken a line up of our current beauties in approximately the same place…Today’s beauties looking very smart in their suits are sixth- formers”] (Secondary, female, 50-59)
Some respondents felt that the educational needs of boys and girls could not be met by ignoring the different needs of young women and young men:-
• I don’t see genders as equal – just the chances/opportunities that everyone should have. (Female, primary, 29-39)
• It depends on the school you are totally. I firmly believe that boys & girls should be taught separately for some lessons because this will give them the opportunity to learn about their own gender & the opposite gender without being influenced in their opinions by the opposite gender. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
26. LESBIAN, GAY AND BISEXUAL RESPONDENTS
Most respondents reported themselves to be heterosexual; a small minority of respondents did not report their gender or sexual orientation, or described themselves as gay (4), bisexual (1) or lesbian (1) - there were no reported transsexual respondents.
A Serious Business.doc 25 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM This total of six LGBT respondents is in line with Warwick et al’s (2004) estimate that 2.6 per cent of the workforce may have had a same-sex partner in the last five years.
Respondents were not asked to report whether they had made their sexuality public and none stated whether they had explicitly done so. Given the concern expressed below about homophobia by heterosexual respondents, it seems likely that LGBT respondents would see themselves as ‘at risk’ despite the requirement for all schools to protect LGBT teachers from discrimination and bullying to meet the requirements of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 (HMSO 2003a,b). Warwick et al. (2004) noted that teaching was the profession where LGBT individuals felt least able to ‘come out’.
The following cannot be regarded as definitive in view of the small numbers involved; a specifically focused sample would be necessary to produce enough respondents for statistical generalisations to be made. Differences between LGBT and heterosexual respondents must be interpreted with caution because of the small numbers involved.
Most LGBT respondents were on the main scale, whereas a high proportion of heterosexual staff had TLR points. LGBT respondents were slightly more likely to be working in secondary schools than their heterosexual colleagues.
Many heterosexual respondents reported homophobic insults formed a common part of the language used between pupils:
• ‘Gay’ used as insult more frequently now. I work in a small-ish first school in Suffolk – not a large city comp… (Female, 29-39)
• ‘Gay’ is commonly used as an insult and ‘lesbian’ is creeping in among girls. (Primary, female, 50-59)
• I find the main problem is anti-gay language. I feel more policies on this and education to do with this is needed. The kids who do have sexuality issues often have nowhere to turn / do not know what to do / where to go for help. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
• “That’s gay!” & all the usual plethora of words directed at labelling women. (Secondary, female, 21-28)
• As noted earlier, the word ‘gay’ is used as a negative adjective – without necessarily referring to homosexuality. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
• Pupils regularly call each other “gay” “whore” “gayboy” + “dickhead”. (Secondary, female, 40-49)
• ‘F’ word. Calling people ‘gay’ (Primary and secondary supply, female, 50- 59)
• Mild jibbing between pupils. Use of term “gay” to describe something seen as not being “cool”! (Secondary, male, 40-49)
A Serious Business.doc 26 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM • Pupils use the word ‘gay’ frequently – sometimes not as a sexist taunt. The word has evolved to mean [more] than a sexual orientation – but it is none the less used negatively. P.S. This was not a term directed at me – but at other students. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
Many heterosexual respondents also reported negative comments made in conjunction with questioning the sexual orientation of staff and students:-
• Students calling each other “gay” (and me sometimes) has become increasingly commonplace. As a head of department the most serious incident I have had to deal with was false rumours towards a teacher that they had abused a pupil on a school trip. (Secondary, male, 29-39)
• Pupils – boys – ‘Are you gay, Sir?’ the fact that I have 3 children doesn’t always count for much! Teaching at a girls’ school I don’t have boys to avoid work. I feel the problem needs tackling more with boys than girls. (Secondary, male, 40-49)
• At the end of a workshop, an argument broke out between a boy and a girl (15 yrs). He called her a “f-----g bitch”. She screamed back at him “Get f------d you queer c—t” The boy is regularly accused of being ‘gay’ and has had a homophobic chatline set up around / about him by other students. He lives his life under ‘suspicion’ of being homosexual. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
• In my girls’ school there is frequent use of the word ‘lesbian’ by pupils about other pupils. I have heard of male teachers being referred to as ‘gay’ by pupils. Sometimes colleagues refer to particular books / activities as being inappropriate in a ‘girls’ school’. I also hear pupils referring to other pupils as ‘slags’ / ‘slappers’ in lunchbreaks / corridors or while having arguments which get reported. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
• Pupils deliberately use sexist language to offend other pupils and openly speculate on sexual orientation of a few members of staff - especially accusations of being “gay” or “lesbo” or “homo”. Worringly – pupils are making sexual innuendos at a much younger age and often do not see this as a problem. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
• References to homosexuality have increased and appear to be the worst insult. (Secondary, female, 60+)
LGBT teachers are likely to feel uncomfortable in such an atmosphere even if their sexual orientation is not known to the pupils.
However LGBT respondents were not more likely to report sexist language than their heterosexual colleagues. About half the LGBT respondents worked in situations other than secondary schools, the setting where problems of sexist behaviour were most frequent. LGBT respondents in settings other than secondaries did not report problems, but the secondary LGBT respondents did:
• Most significantly pupils directed sexist abuse at one another both in and out of lessons, particularly abusive name calling, inappropriate use of
A Serious Business.doc 27 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM body language and taunts that are sexual in nature. Have had inappropriate sexual remarks made towards myself by both genders. (Secondary, gay female, 29-39, school in serious weaknesses category)
• Homophobia is rife within the school I work within. (Secondary, gay male, 29-39)
The gay female teacher, aged 29-39, quoted above had suffered harassment (this single case accounts for LGBT respondents suffering a rather higher incidence of harassment than their heterosexual colleagues):
• A year 8 [male] pupil has developed a ‘crush’ and held me inappropriately – reported to Head of Faculty.
This respondent reported ‘mixed views’ on whether the school took her concerns seriously and whether the outcome was satisfactory, and was one of the few respondents to fell ‘not very safe’ in school.
The gay male secondary teacher, aged 29-39, did not report direct sexual harassment or assault, but unsurprisingly felt only ‘fairly safe’.
These incidents indicate schools are not meeting the requirement (Warwick et al. 2004) to provide effective support for LGBT staff. Unlike their heterosexual colleagues, who mostly felt ‘safe’ or ‘very safe’, a majority (4 out of 6) LGBT respondents felt ‘fairly safe’ or ‘not very safe’ in their schools.
A majority (4, with one answering ‘maybe’ and one abstention) thought security personnel in school would prevent sexual assaults; only a quarter of heterosexual staff supported this view. There was no divergence between LGBT respondents and their heterosexual colleagues about other measures to reduce sexist language, sexual harassment and sexual assault, nor was there a difference on views about whether these problems had increased.
However, some LGBT respondents reported they could deal with problems effectively, suggesting that authority could over-ride any other aspect:
• Not unusual to witness boys at secondary schools taunting groups of girls with “slag”….As a school visitor my best power is direct stern looks, the occasional comment. Never extreme enough to report to the Head. (Bisexual teacher, centrally employed, 50-59)
27. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Slightly under half the respondents had experienced sexist language, and the more serious problems were correspondingly rarer.
Only one of the 190 respondents suggested that the questionnaire was addressing a problem which did not exist:
• I do feel this questionnaire is self-fulfilling ie if completed, it suggests there is significant sexism in our workplace – there is not an option in your questions to reply with a once a year, once every 5 years answer which is
A Serious Business.doc 28 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM one to which I could respond. I’ve completed it, to try & address what could become a reply from only those with grievances. (Primary, female, 50-59)
For comparison, we can look at two surveys of NUT members which addressed the problems of violence and unacceptable behaviour in general, without specific reference to its sexist / sexual aspects.
A small-scale survey of NUT members in London schools in summer 2005 (Neill 2005) showed that 22 out of 50 had encountered a weapon (knife, gun or improvised weapon) being carried in the last year and that 14 of these had experienced a weapon being used (though this might be only a pellet gun being fired in the playground).
Of course, the situation in London is not representative of schools in the country as a whole; a survey in 2001 (Neill 2001), though now somewhat out-dated, gave a national coverage similar to the current survey. In that survey 22 per cent encountered students in possession of an offensive weapon in the last year and 83 per cent had encountered pupil-pupil violence. Pushing or touching had been experienced by 27 per cent and threats from pupils by 24 per cent; 85 per cent had experienced offensive language from pupils in the last year. Actual (non- sexist) assaults on and injuries had happened to 27 per cent of respondents during their careers; these assaults included being bitten or head-butted by young children who could not control their tempers. As in the case of sexist language and sexual harassment, support from senior colleagues was often poor: 41 per cent of those who had been assaulted thought that they had poor or no support.
This suggests that sexist incidents are a minority of all incidents of unacceptable pupil behaviour, especially of the more serious incidents.
Around half of all respondents to this survey reported that they had experienced sexist language or bullying (the figures reported overall and reported for the last term were closely similar, indicating that, if the problem occurs at all, it occurs frequently), as opposed to the 85 per cent figure for general offensive language mentioned in the previous paragraph.
This is consistent with Witkowska & Menckel’s (2005) ratings by Swedish secondary female students, who considered bullying, drugs, ethnic harassment, student drinking, and racial conflicts, in that order, as greater problems in their schools than sexual harassment, which was seen as a serious problem by 15 per cent and somewhat of a problem by 34 per cent. However, as discussed below, sexual harassment does share a specifically targeted nature with ethnic and racial harassment and this is likely to affect responses to it. The fact that young people themselves in the Swedish study do not identify sexism as the dominant problem does not mean that it should not be a concern for policy makers. Sexist attitudes, left unchallenged and even condoned, contribute to peer violence, gender stereotyping and violence against women such as rape and domestic violence.
The teachers in this study believed that children in primary schools repeat sexual terms and sexist language without understanding the meaning. They believed
A Serious Business.doc 29 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM that young men and women in secondary schools are subjected to sexist messages and stereotypes from music, families and peers and that this is the reason why young people are not likely to identify sexist language or sexist bullying as out of the ordinary or as a matter of concern.
This is supported by the figures for sexist language including cases such as primary-school children who had stereotypical sexist ideas about gender- appropriate games; while these may clearly offend a teacher’s sense of what is educationally appropriate and desirable, should be challenged (Jennett 2004) and are a cause for concern in light of the highly gendered subject choices made by young people, they would not be ‘offensive’ language in the disciplinary sense of the term.
Instead these present an educational opportunity which could be used to develop the children’s understanding and to challenge stereotypes in the hope that young people will make choices which are as open as possible and not constrained by their gender and by stereotypes about men and women.
The figures in this study suggest that a proportion, perhaps half, of all offensive language is sexist in nature.
In terms of physical incidents of a sexual nature, the rate of reported assaults of all types over the course of respondents’ careers as a whole in the 2001 survey is much higher than the rate of sexist assaults reported in this survey. The actual ratio is about 50:1 but one or two more assaults reported in this survey would radically alter this ratio.
This suggests that the more serious sexual incidents, especially, are a relatively small proportion of the behaviour problems teachers have to deal with. However statistical frequency is only part of the situation, and an analogy may be useful.
Motor vehicles cause many more deaths than terrorist activity, and it is likely that the injuries and trauma caused by road accidents are, on an individual basis, as crippling as those caused by terrorist incidents. However, it is unlikely to be politically acceptable to lower the level or precaution against terrorism, on the basis that it is statistically a low risk to individual citizens.
What is being argued here is that the distress and offence felt by those teachers who experience sexism and sexual harassment and assault justify rigorous action, even if the actual risk is agreed to be small. This has clearly been the case in relation to risks of abuse by adults to children; the expensive apparatus of CRB checks has been felt to be justified by the over-riding need to protect children.
Similarly, it is clear that many heterosexual respondents are distressed by the homophobia apparent in their schools, and that homophobic abuse is widely perceived as being as unacceptable as racist abuse because it negates an important part of the recipient’s identity (Warwick et al. 2004, Jennett 2004).
The open-ended responses indicate that insults to young women teachers are seen as unacceptably offensive, even if there is no statistical evidence that they
A Serious Business.doc 30 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM are being selectively targeted, with a sample of this size. A larger sample may indicate that respondents’ intuitive judgements are statistically justified.
In both cases specific groups of teachers and pupils, by reason of their sexual orientation or because they are female, are perceived as being particularly targeted and this clearly offends many educators’ commitment to equality of treatment.
When discussing the predicament of young women, older female respondents reported that with increasing age and experience they were able to escape from the effects of harassment, but no similar ‘escape’ is available to teachers who are LGBT or who are perceived to be LGBT teachers.
As pointed out in the discussion of the sample, this questionnaire attracted a higher proportion of female and young teacher respondents than previous surveys (Neill 2001, 2005) of unacceptable behaviour and this is best interpreted as resulting from these groups feeling relatively more concern about sexism and sexual harassment than the rest of the teacher population.
One of the most interesting findings is that young women felt more targeted, as reported by both less and more experienced respondents; this is consistent with Uggen & Blackstone (2004) who found women both objectively reported more unequivocal types of harassment and were more prone to subjectively label their experiences as harassment. Uggen & Blackstone considered that, because harassment is not seen as part of male cultural experience, men did not label unequivocal experiences (e.g. touching) as harassment, though men with more egalitarian views were more prone to do so. They also considered harassment as an expression of power, which is of importance to how institutional hierarchies relate to harassment, as discussed in the next section.
28. WHAT SHOULD SCHOOLS DO?
Though Lanhout et al. (2005) are properly cautious about applying their findings outside the military, the findings of this survey do suggest parallels between the views of Lanhout et al.’s respondents and the views of respondents to this survey.
Firstly, as mentioned in the introduction, Lanhout et al. found harassment reduced victims’ job satisfaction, organisational commitment and the reported effectiveness of their work teams. Secondly, types of harassment which might have been ignored if they were infrequent became distressing if frequency increased, but some types of harassment, especially more serious or unambiguous types, were threatening whatever their frequency. Both these findings are paralleled in this survey. Thirdly the victims found harassment from superiors much more psychologically distressing.
This survey of NUT members concentrated on harassment from pupils but a parallel can be drawn with Lanhout at el.’s findings. As mentioned above, many respondents did not report incidents to the authorities, often dealing with the incident themselves. This would be consistent with Lanhout et al.’s view point that the relative status of the harasser affects the perception of the harassment;
A Serious Business.doc 31 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM because of pupils’ lesser status, some teachers felt able to take control of the incident.
Here Smirles’ (2004) study of responses to simulated workplace harassment is relevant. Smirles gave (university student) respondents a description of an incident of a senior colleague’s harassment of a junior colleague; female respondents and those with progressive attitudes towards women were more supportive of the victim, regardless of the sex of victim and perpetrator (a difference confirmed by Bimrose (2004) in respect of real workplace harassment). However when an account of the victim’s response was added, this over-rode these effects; all respondents blamed the perpetrator if the victim assertively opposed the harassment, but blamed a compliant victim. It is therefore important that victims are seen to be rejecting attempts at harassment and this justifies teachers’ decisions to do so themselves.
However, in many cases the decision not to report to superiors was because of a perceived lack of sympathy or support from them. In such cases senior staff could be seen as colluding with the harassers and indeed as harassing by proxy.
This has parallels with the situation in respect to anti-bullying policies for pupils (which includes sexist and homophobic bullying); despite a legal requirement for schools to have anti-bullying policies, many pupils do not feel confident of support from adults, including teachers (Oliver & Candappa 2003). Oliver and Candappa consider pupils weigh the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action in a sophisticated way and often feel that assertive action on their own is the most effective strategy. One reason behind this is that two-thirds of schools, despite having the statutorily required anti-bullying policy, did not monitor recorded incidents to assess whether the incidence of bullying was changing (Smith & Samara 2003). There is a tendency for educational authorities to address harassment in a problem-solving way rather than providing emotional support (Bingham & Battey 2005).
There was clearly considerable anger expressed about the lack of support from senior staff and institutional condoning of sexism or homophobia, this despite the requirement for all schools to include homophobic bullying in their anti-bullying policies (Jennett 2004) and the requirement in the DFES anti bullying guidance ‘Don’t Suffer in Silence’ for schools to explicitly challenge and address sexist bullying.
Given the evidence that harassment contributes to ill-health and lack of organisational commitment, even managers who do not consider it a serious problem in itself need to reflect that harassment is likely to decrease organisational efficiency and therefore constitutes poor management which is likely to increase the risk to their organisations at times of inspection.
It seems likely that the most effective way of getting harassment policies instituted in schools is the sort of professional moral pressure described by Short (2006) which effected the adoption of anti-peer-harassment policies in the U.S.A. However Short notes that a national survey of harassment reported by secondary students in 2000, after the widespread adoption of anti-peer-harassment policies, showed no decrease in rates from a previous survey by the same investigators in 1992, before the policies were widely adopted, though awareness of the issue
A Serious Business.doc 32 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM had much increased. Short felt that harassment policies might have the same effect as workplace anti-discrimination policies; an organisation which has a well- publicised policy which the victim fails to invoke is protected against legal claims. Short felt that for policies to have an actual effect, schools needed to stress their legal grounds rather than presenting them on the basis of fairness and a hospitable learning environment. Similarly Grube & Lens (2003) felt the informal school culture and student reluctance to confront issues of harassment would have to be changed before there was any real effect.
Marshall (2005), discussing the ineffectiveness of written anti-harassment policies at university level, felt, as did Short, that they were applied in a managerial way which served to protect the employer’s interests. She considered this situation had only been overcome in industry by making the application of grievance procedures either the responsibility of a neutral ombudsman or devolving the responsibility to ordinary employees who are aware of what is happening because they are members of informal workplace networks, and are therefore often able to solve conflicts informally.
However these suggestions, while appropriate in an adult hierarchy, may only be applicable in schools where there is effective involvement of all parties, including students, for example through a school council (Warwick et al. 2004). Both Warwick et al. and Lahelma (2004) point out that dealing with homophobia and harassment as a generalised problem may be counterproductive and ineffective.
A particular issue arising from this study is that the responses serve as a reminder that even within professions which are as female dominated as teaching, sexism and sexual harassment persist and are deeply entrenched. Bimrose (2004) considers that it could be unethical for careers guidance counsellors to advise individuals to enter jobs where there is a particular risk of harassment. She was primarily thinking of women entering employment sectors such as construction where there has historically been male dominance and a high level of harassment. Her view is that the problem needs to be solved at institutional, not individual level, and until institutions address the problem, applicants should not be advised to enter risky employment sectors.
Strategies to reduce the sexist and sexual terms used by pupils and levels of sexist bullying will need to be supported by greater acceptance of the authority of teachers to deal with unacceptable behaviour of all kinds including sexist language and harassment.
The proposal to give teachers legal authority to enforce discipline policies in the current Education and Inspections Bill (House of Lords 2006)) could contribute if it becomes effective in practice, as should the requirement from April 2007 for schools to promote gender equality and to develop a gender equality scheme and action plan (Equality Act 2006).
A Serious Business.doc 33 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM REFERENCES
Anderson,E. (2006) Recent thinking about sexual harassment: a review essay. Philosophy & Public Affairs 34/3: 284-311
Bimrose,J. (2004) Sexual harassment in the workplace: an ethical dilemma for career guidance practice? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32/1, 109-121.
Bingham, S. & Battey, K. (2005) Communication of social support to sexual harassment victims: Professors' responses to a student's narrative of unwanted sexual attention. Communication Studies 5/2, 131-155.
Chambers,D., Tincknell,E. & Van Loon,J (2004) Peer regulation of teenage sexual identities. Gender and Education, 16/3, 397-415.
Equality Act 2006 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2006/ukpga_20060003_en.pdf
Gillander Gådin,K. & Hammarström,A. (2005) A possible contributor to the higher degree of girls reporting psychological symptoms compared with boys in grade nine? European Journal of Public Health, 15/4, 380–385
Grube B. & Lens V. (2003) Student-to-Student Harassment: The Impact of Davis v. Monroe. Children and Schools, 25/3, 173-185.
HMSO (2003a) The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003. Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 1661. London:HMSO.
HMSO (2003b) The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) (Amendment) Regulations 2003. Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 2827. London: HMSO.
House of Lords (2006) Education and Inspections Bill. London: House of Lords. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/116/06116.66-69.html#j371c (accessed 4th. September 2006)
Jennett,M. (2004) Stand Up For Us; Challenging homophobia in schools. London: Department for Education and Skills / Department for Health.
Lahelma,E. (2004) Tolerance and understanding? students and teachers reflect on differences at school. Educational Research and Evaluation 10/1, 3–19
Langhout,R.D,. Bergman,M.E., Cortina,L.M., Fitzgerald,L.F., Drasgow,F. & Hunter Williams,J. (2005) Sexual harassment severity: assessing situational and personal determinants and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35/5, 975-1007.
Marshall,A-M. (2005) Idle rights: employees’ rights consciousness and the construction of sexual harassment policies. Law & Society Review, 39/1, 83-123.
Neill,S.R.St.J. (2001) Unacceptable Pupil Behaviour. London: National Union of Teachers.
Neill,S.R.St.J. (2005) Knives and other weapons in London schools. International Journal of School Disaffection, 3/2: 27-32.
A Serious Business.doc 34 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Nishina,A. & Juvonen,J. (2005) Daily Reports of Witnessing and Experiencing Peer Harassment in Middle School. Child Development 76/2, 435–450.
Oliver,C. & Candappa,M. (2003) Tackling Bullying: listening to the views of children and young people. London: Department for Education & Science.
Robinson,K.H. 2005 Reinforcing hegemonic masculinities through sexual harassment: issues of identity, power and popularity in secondary schools. Gender and Education. 17/1, 19–37.
Rospenda,K., Richman,J., Ehmke,J., & Zlatoper,K. (2005) Is workplace harassment hazardous to your health? : Journal of Business and Psychology, 20/1, 95-110.
Short,J.L. (2006) Creating peer sexual harassment: mobilizing schools to throw the book at themselves. Law & Policy, 28/1, 31-59.
Smirles,K.E. (2004) Attributions of responsibility in cases of sexual harassment: the person and the situation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34/2, 342-365.
Smith,P. & Samara,M. (2003) Evaluation of the DfES anti-bullying pack. Research Brief RBX06-03. London: Department for Education & Science.
Timmerman,G. (2005) A comparison between girls’ and boys’ experiences of unwanted sexual behaviour in secondary schools. Educational Research, 47/3, 291 – 306
Troop-Gordon,W. & Ladd,G.W. (2005) Trajectories of peer victimization and perceptions of the self and schoolmates: precursors to internalizing and externalizing problems. Child Development, 76/5: 1072 – 1091
Uggen,C. & Blackstone,A. (2004) Sexual harassment as a gendered expression of power. American Sociological Review 69/2: 64-92
Warwick,I., Chase,E., Aggleton,P. & Sanders,S. (2004) Homophobia, Sexual Orientation and Schools: a Review and Implications for Action. Research Report RR594. London: Department for Education and Skills.
Williams,T., Connolly,J., Pepler,D,. & Craig,W. (2005) Peer victimization, social support, and psychosocial adjustment of sexual minority adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34/5, 471-482.
Witkowska,E. & Menckel,E. (2005) Perceptions of sexual harassment in Swedish high schools: experiences and school environment problems. European Journal of Public Health, 15/1, 78–85
Wyss,S.E. (2004) ‘This was my hell’: the violence experienced by gender non- conforming youth in US high schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17/ 5, 709-730.
A Serious Business.doc 35 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM APPENDIX I THE QUESTIONNAIRE
NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS
SURVEY ON THE EXPERIENCES OF TEACHERS OF SEXISM, SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL ASSAULT WITHIN SCHOOLS/COLLEGES
April 2006
Dear Colleague
Please find enclosed a survey on the experiences of teachers of sexism, sexual harassment and sexual assaults in schools and colleges.
Incidents of sexism, sexual harassment and even sexual assault by pupils can be serious issues for teachers. By completing this survey, with a guarantee of complete confidence, you will help the Union build a comprehensive picture of the frequency and nature of such incidents. This will inform the Union in its development of policies. It will help us prepare guidance to members and to enhance arrangements to protect members.
This survey is being sent to a statistically significant sample of NUT members across all settings and services in which NUT members are employed. We need responses from all members irrespective of gender. It is completely confidential and all responses to the survey will be treated in the strictest of confidence.
Please complete and return the survey answering all the questions for which you have experience or information.
Yours sincerely
STEVE SINNOTT General Secretary
A Serious Business.doc 36 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Section A: ABOUT YOU – please tick appropriate box.
1. AGE: 21-28 29-39 40-49 50-59 60+
2. GENDER: M F Trans
3. SEXUAL Heterosexual Gay Bisexual ORIENTATION: Lesbian
4. EMPLOYMENT: Full-time Part-time Supply
5. LENGTH OF Less than 3 years 3-6 years 7-9 years SERVICE: 10-15 years 16-25 years 26 years or more
6. YOUR POST: Head teacher Deputy head teacher Assistant head teacher Teacher with TLR payment/management points Teacher with upper scale Teacher on main scale Class teacher NUT representative
7. PHASE: Under 5s Primary/Middle Secondary Pupil Referral Units Special LEA centrally employed teacher Sixth Form College (e.g. SEN advisory teacher, traveller education
A Serious Business.doc 37 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Section B: ABOUT YOUR SCHOOL/COLLEGE
8. NAME OF LOCAL AUTHORITY:
9. TYPE OF Voluntary Aided Foundation School SCHOOL/ Voluntary Controlled Community School COLLEGE: Academy Independent School City Technical College Sixth Form College Faith School
10. GENDER OF Co-Educational Boys Only PUPILS: Girls Only
11. PUPIL PROFILE % of pupils on Special Educational Needs register: OF SCHOOL/ % of pupils eligible for free school meals: COLLEGE:
12. IS YOUR In special measures? SCHOOL/ COLLEGE: Under a notice to improve? In the serious weaknesses category?
Definitions of sexist language, sexual harassment and sexual assault can be found at the back of this document.
A Serious Business.doc 38 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM 13. Have you ever witnessed or experienced sexist language or sexist bullying by pupils whilst carrying out your employment? You may find the definitions of sexist language and sexist bullying on page 12 useful.
Yes No (go to question 14) (go to question 27)
14. How often do you hear sexist language used by pupils directed at staff?
Once a term Once a month Once a week Every lesson Several times a week Every day
15. How often do you hear sexist language used by pupils directed at each other?
Once a term Once a month Once a week Every lesson Several times a week Every day
16. How often do you witness sexist bullying by pupils towards other pupils?
Once a term Once a month Once a week Every lesson Several times a week Every day
17. How many times has sexist language been directed at you by pupils in the last twelve months?
Once a term Once a month Once a week Every lesson Several times a week Every day
From the experiences listed above, if you have identified one or more as applying to you, please use the space below to briefly describe the most significant incident.
A Serious Business.doc 39 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM 18. Where did this incident happen?
Classroom Staffroom Toilets Corridors School/college fields Dinner hall/Canteen Playground Travelling to/from work Car Park Immediately outside school/college premises Laboratory Waiting or arrival area for school buses Workshop Gymnasium or changing room
Other:
19. Was the pupil male or female?
Male Female
20. Did you report this incident?
Yes No (go to question 21) (go to question 26)
21. If you reported this incident how was your report addressed? Please tick all applicable.
No action taken School/college logged the incident Follow up action taken with pupil/colleague Whole school/college policies evaluated and/or developed Parents of pupil were contacted
Other: (Please explain)
22. Was the outcome satisfactory?
Very Fairly Mixed views Not very Not at all
23. Did you feel that the school/college took your concerns seriously?
Very Fairly Mixed views Not very Not at all
24. Did you raise the matter as a grievance?
Yes No
A Serious Business.doc 40 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM 25. If the outcome was un-satisfactory, what more do you think could and should have been done?
Incidents should be recorded in incident book Disciplinary process invoked in respect of staff Sexual content within verbal abuse should be recognised and challenged School should explore sexism and sexual bullying through the Curriculum School should refer to sexism explicitly in anti-bullying policies School behaviour policy should have been pursued including consideration of suspension or exclusion
Other: (Please give suggestions)
26. If you did not report this incident, please tell us why not. Please tick all applicable
Fear of being ridiculed or trivialised Lack of confidence in line manager or SMT to investigate or take action School/college takes no action to confront sexist language Too busy to report it My professional judgement was that the incident did not need to be reported My professional judgement was to deal with the incident directly e.g. speak to the pupil/colleague
Other: (Please explain)
27. Have you ever experienced sexual harassment by a pupil whilst carrying out your employment?
You may find the definition of sexual harassment on page 12 useful.
Yes No (go to question 28 ) (go to question 38)
28. How many times have you experienced sexual harassment by pupils within the last twelve months?
Once in 12 months At least twice 3-5 times More than 5 times Once a week Every day
Please tell us more about this incident or the most significant of these incidents. If you can recall more than one example, please tell us about the most recent or most significant incident.
A Serious Business.doc 41 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM 29. Where did this incident happen?
Classroom Staffroom Toilets Corridors School/college fields Dinner hall/Canteen Playground Travelling to/from work Car Park Immediately outside school/college premises Laboratory Waiting or arrival area for school buses Workshop Gymnasium or changing room
Other:
30. Was the pupil male or female?
Male Female
31. Did you report this incident?
Yes No (go to question 32) (go to question 37)
32. If you reported this incident how was your report addressed? Please tick all applicable.
No action taken School/college logged the incident Investigation by head teacher/SMT Follow up action taken with pupil Whole school/college policies evaluated and/or developed Parents of pupil were contacted
Other:
33. Was the outcome satisfactory?
Very Fairly Mixed views Not very Not at all
34. Did you feel that the school/college took your concerns seriously?
Very Fairly Mixed views Not very Not at all
35. Did you raise the matter as a grievance?
Yes No
A Serious Business.doc 42 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM 36. If the outcome was unsatisfactory, what more do you think could and should have been done?
Incidents should be reported in incident book Disciplinary process invoked Sexual content within sexist harassment should be actively recognised and challenged School should explore sexism and sexual harassment through the curriculum School should refer explicitly to sexual harassment in bullying and harassment policies School behaviour policy should have been pursued including consideration of exclusion
Other: (Please give suggestions)
37. If you did not report the incident, please tell us why not. Please tick all applicable
Fear of being ridiculed or trivialised Feeling embarrassed or uncomfortable discussing the issue Lack of confidence in line manager or SMT to investigate or take action School/college takes no action to reduce sexual harassment Too busy to report it My professional judgement was that the incident did not need to reported My professional judgement was to deal with the incident directly e.g.speak to the pupil involved
Other: (Please explain)
38. Have you ever been threatened with sexual assault by a pupil? You may find the definition of sexual assault on page 12 useful.
Yes No (go to question 39) (go to question 49)
39. How many times have you experienced such threats from a pupil within the last twelve months?
Once At least twice More than twice
Please tell us more about this incident/one of these incidents. If you can recall more than one example, please tell us about the most recent or most significant incident.
A Serious Business.doc 43 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM 40. Where did this incident happen?
Classroom Staffroom Toilets Corridors School/college fields Dinner hall/Canteen Playground Travelling to/from work Car Park Immediately outside school/college premises Laboratory Waiting or arrival area for school buses Workshop Gymnasium or changing room
Other: ______
41. Was the pupil male or female?
Male Female
42. Did you report this incident?
Yes No (go to question 43) (go to question 48)
43. If you reported this incident how was your report addressed? Please tick all applicable
No action taken School/college logged the incident Investigation by head teacher/SMT Follow up action taken with pupil Whole school/college policies evaluated and/or developed Parents of pupil were contacted Other: (Please explain)
44. Was the outcome satisfactory?
Very Fairly Mixed views Not very Not at all
45. Did you feel that the school/college took your concerns seriously?
Very Fairly Mixed views Not very Not at all
46. Did you raise the matter as a grievance?
Yes No
A Serious Business.doc 44 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM 47. If the outcome was unsatisfactory, what more do you think could and should have been done?
Incidents should be recorded in incident book Disciplinary process invoked in respect of staff Sexual content within verbal abuse should be recognised and challenged School should explore sexism and sexual bullying through the Curriculum School should refer to sexism explicitly in anti-bullying policies School behaviour policy should have been pursued including consideration of exclusion
Other: (Please give suggestions)
48. If you did not report the incident, please tell us why not. Please tick all applicable
Fear of being ridiculed or trivialised Feeling embarrassed or uncomfortable discussing the issue Lack of confidence in line manager or SMT to investigate or take action School/college takes no action to reduce sexual harassment My professional judgement was that the incident did not need to be reported My professional judgement was to deal with the incident directly e.g. to speak to the pupil involved
Other: (Please explain)
49. Have you ever experienced an actual sexual assault whilst in the course of your employment? Please see the definitions on page 12
Yes No (go to question 50) (go to question 51)
50. Please tell us as much as you wish to about this incident.
51. How safe do you feel in and around your school/college?
Very safe Safe Fairly safe Not very safe Not safe at all
A Serious Business.doc 45 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM 52. If you have taught for over 10 years or more, do you feel:
More safe than ten years ago working in school/college Less safe than ten years ago working in school/college
53. Do you think the following measures would reduce sexist language in schools and colleges?
Yes No Maybe Don’t know Strategies to recognise and challenge sexual content within verbal abuse
Use single sex groupings to explore sensitive issues Strategic leadership from the SMT Record incidents in incident book Refer to it explicitly in anti-bullying policies and harassment policies Training for school governors and SMT on understanding of sexism and gender equality Inset on gender equality and suitable strategies
Please tell us about other measures you feel would reduce sexist language in schools and colleges.
54. Do you think the following measures would reduce sexual harassment of teachers in schools and colleges?
Yes No Maybe Don’t know Strategies to recognise and challenge sexual content within verbal abuse Use single sex groupings to explore sensitive issues Strategic leadership from the SMT Record incidents in incident book Refer to it explicitly in anti-bullying policies and harassment policies Training for school governors and SMT on understanding of sexism and gender equality Inset on gender equality and suitable strategies
Please tell us about other measures you feel would reduce the sexual harassment of teachers/pupils in schools/colleges.
A Serious Business.doc 46 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM 55. Do you think the following measures would prevent sexual assaults in schools and colleges?
Yes No Maybe Don’t know Panic Buttons/Alarms Strategic Leadership from the SMT Whole school/college curriculum policy on sexism and promoting gender equality Prevention education within PSHE or citizenship about all forms of violence against women. Security Personnel
Please inform us of other measures you feel would prevent sexual assaults in schools/colleges.
56. Does your school/college have a whole school equal opportunities policy?
Yes No Don’t know
57. Does your school/college have a pupil behaviour policy which covers sexual harassment and sexist bullying?
Yes No Don’t know
58. Does your school/college have a workplace harassment and bullying policy which covers sexual harassment and sexist bullying?
Yes No Don’t know
59. If your length of service has been seven years or more, do you believe that incidents of sexist language from pupils have increased since you started teaching?
Yes No Don’t know
60. If your length of service has been seven years or more, do you believe that incidents of sexual harassment by pupils have increased since you started teaching?
Yes No Don’t know
A Serious Business.doc 47 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM 61. Please feel free to add any more comments in the space provided. In particular, please provide us with examples of sexist words/language which pupils/colleagues use, or sexist stereotypes which you hear used within your school/college. Use asterisks if you prefer.
Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey.
Please return the survey by Friday 5th May 2006.
Definitions
Sexist Language is language which promotes the stereotyping of people on the basis of gender. Sexist language means words and phrases which can reflect or reinforce prejudice against men or women, thus perpetuating discriminatory attitudes and prejudice or language which can patronise or trivialise. Sexism is often unconscious because sexism in language is so prevalent that we may be completely unaware that language use is biased. Sexism means discrimination based on gender and attitudes, conditions, or behaviours that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
Sexist Bullying is defined by the DFES as follows: “Sexual bullying impacts on both genders. Boys are also victims – of girls and other boys. In general, sexual bullying is characterised by: • Abusive name calling • Looks and comments about appearance, attractiveness, emerging puberty • Inappropriate and uninvited touching • Sexual innuendoes and propositions • Pornographic material, graffiti with sexual content • In its most extreme form, sexual assault or rape”
A Serious Business.doc 48 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Sexual Harassment is defined in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. For the purposes of the SDA 1975, a person subjects a woman/man to harassment if:
(a) on the ground of his/her sex, he/she engages in unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect:
(i) of violating his/her dignity, or (ii) of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him/her
(b) he/she engages in any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that has the purpose or effect:
(i) of violating his/her dignity, or (ii) of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him/her, or
(c) on the ground of his/her rejection of, or submission to, unwanted conduct of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b), he or she treats that person less favourably than he/she would treat that person had he or she not rejected, or submitted to, the conduct.
Sexual harassment covers situations where the unwanted conduct is sexual in nature – e.g. making unwelcome sexually explicit comments. This is unwanted conduct not necessarily related to a person’s sex but is of a “sexual nature”. Conduct which has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for someone, can be harassment, even if creating that kind of environment was not the intention behind the conduct.
There are many different situations that could be construed as sexual harassment. Individual men and women will have differing opinions of what they regard as such behaviour (for instance, when horseplay becomes harassment, or photographs are offensive) but either a serious “one-off” occurrence or an accumulation of incidents can be harassment.
The sexual harassment of men is made equally unlawful by The Sex Discrimination Act as the harassment of women.
Sexual Assault in this survey includes serious sexual assaults including actual or threatened penetration of the body without consent including but not only rape. It also includes actual or threatened touching, or flashing or other sexual threats that cause fear, alarm or distress.
A Serious Business.doc 49 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM APPENDIX II THE SAMPLE AND THEIR SCHOOLS
Notes In the tables, the ‘Frequency’ column gives the actual numbers, ‘Percent’ is of the whole sample, and ‘Valid Percent’ and ‘Cumulative Percent’ apply only to those who answered the question; ‘Missing’ respondents were unable to answer the question (e.g. many respondents did not know the percentage on the SEN register)
Age
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 21-28 40 21.2 21.4 21.4 29-39 51 27.0 27.3 48.7 40-49 39 20.6 20.9 69.5 50-59 51 27.0 27.3 96.8 60+ 6 3.2 3.2 100.0 Total 187 98.9 100.0 Missing System 2 1.1 Total 189 100.0
Gender
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 33 17.5 17.6 17.6 Female 154 81.5 82.4 100.0 Total 187 98.9 100.0 Missing System 2 1.1 Total 189 100.0
Sexual orientation
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual 180 95.2 96.8 96.8 Gay 4 2.1 2.2 98.9 Bisexual 1 .5 .5 99.5 Lesbian 1 .5 .5 100.0 Total 186 98.4 100.0 Missing System 3 1.6 Total 189 100.0
Employment
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Full-time 150 79.4 80.2 80.2 Part-time 31 16.4 16.6 96.8 Supply 6 3.2 3.2 100.0 Total 187 98.9 100.0 Missing System 2 1.1 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 50 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Length of service
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid less than 3 years 37 19.6 19.7 19.7 3-6 years 23 12.2 12.2 31.9 7-9 years 26 13.8 13.8 45.7 10-15 years 33 17.5 17.6 63.3 16-25 years 37 19.6 19.7 83.0 26 years or above 32 16.9 17.0 100.0 Total 188 99.5 100.0 Missing System 1 .5 Total 189 100.0
Post
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Head teacher 3 1.6 1.6 1.6 Deputy head 7 3.7 3.7 5.3 Assistant head 2 1.1 1.1 6.4 TLR payment / 71 37.6 38.0 44.4 management points On upper scale 28 14.8 15.0 59.4 On main scale 70 37.0 37.4 96.8 NUT representative 6 3.2 3.2 100.0 Total 187 98.9 100.0 Missing System 2 1.1 Total 189 100.0
Phase
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Under 5s 9 4.8 4.8 4.8 Primary / middle 88 46.6 46.6 51.3 Secondary 79 41.8 41.8 93.1 Sixth Form College 10 5.3 5.3 98.4 PRU 1 .5 .5 98.9 Special 1 .5 .5 99.5 LEA centrally employed 1 .5 .5 100.0 Total 189 100.0 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 51 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Type of school
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Voluntary aided 40 21.2 24.7 24.7 Voluntary controlled 5 2.6 3.1 27.8 Academy 1 .5 .6 28.4 CTC 10 5.3 6.2 34.6 Faith School 9 4.8 5.6 40.1 Foundation School 7 3.7 4.3 44.4 Community School 80 42.3 49.4 93.8 Independent School 3 1.6 1.9 95.7 Sixth Form College 7 3.7 4.3 100.0 Total 162 85.7 100.0 Missing System 27 14.3 Total 189 100.0
Gender of pupils
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Co-educational 175 92.6 94.1 94.1 Boys only 6 3.2 3.2 97.3 Girls only 5 2.6 2.7 100.0 Total 186 98.4 100.0 Missing System 3 1.6 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 52 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Percentage on SEN register
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid .04 1 .5 1.1 1.1 2.00 2 1.1 2.2 3.2 3.00 3 1.6 3.2 6.5 3.30 1 .5 1.1 7.5 4.00 2 1.1 2.2 9.7 5.00 6 3.2 6.5 16.1 6.00 3 1.6 3.2 19.4 7.00 1 .5 1.1 20.4 8.00 4 2.1 4.3 24.7 8.90 1 .5 1.1 25.8 9.00 1 .5 1.1 26.9 10.00 11 5.8 11.8 38.7 12.00 1 .5 1.1 39.8 14.00 1 .5 1.1 40.9 15.00 5 2.6 5.4 46.2 16.50 1 .5 1.1 47.3 17.00 1 .5 1.1 48.4 18.00 2 1.1 2.2 50.5 19.00 1 .5 1.1 51.6 20.00 13 6.9 14.0 65.6 23.00 1 .5 1.1 66.7 25.00 5 2.6 5.4 72.0 26.00 2 1.1 2.2 74.2 27.00 1 .5 1.1 75.3 30.00 3 1.6 3.2 78.5 31.00 1 .5 1.1 79.6 33.00 1 .5 1.1 80.6 35.00 2 1.1 2.2 82.8 38.00 1 .5 1.1 83.9 40.00 6 3.2 6.5 90.3 50.00 1 .5 1.1 91.4 53.00 1 .5 1.1 92.5 55.00 1 .5 1.1 93.5 60.00 3 1.6 3.2 96.8 63.00 1 .5 1.1 97.8 100.00 2 1.1 2.2 100.0 Total 93 49.2 100.0 Missing System 96 50.8 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 53 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Percentage eligible for FSM
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid .00 3 1.6 3.8 3.8 .01 1 .5 1.3 5.0 .03 1 .5 1.3 6.3 1.00 3 1.6 3.8 10.0 2.00 3 1.6 3.8 13.8 3.00 2 1.1 2.5 16.3 4.00 3 1.6 3.8 20.0 5.00 3 1.6 3.8 23.8 6.70 1 .5 1.3 25.0 8.00 1 .5 1.3 26.3 9.00 1 .5 1.3 27.5 10.00 4 2.1 5.0 32.5 11.00 1 .5 1.3 33.8 12.00 1 .5 1.3 35.0 13.00 1 .5 1.3 36.3 15.00 6 3.2 7.5 43.8 18.00 2 1.1 2.5 46.3 20.00 2 1.1 2.5 48.8 21.00 1 .5 1.3 50.0 25.00 3 1.6 3.8 53.8 26.00 1 .5 1.3 55.0 30.00 4 2.1 5.0 60.0 31.00 1 .5 1.3 61.3 33.00 3 1.6 3.8 65.0 34.00 1 .5 1.3 66.3 37.00 1 .5 1.3 67.5 40.00 4 2.1 5.0 72.5 42.00 1 .5 1.3 73.8 45.00 2 1.1 2.5 76.3 47.00 2 1.1 2.5 78.8 48.00 1 .5 1.3 80.0 50.00 3 1.6 3.8 83.8 52.00 1 .5 1.3 85.0 53.00 1 .5 1.3 86.3 55.00 1 .5 1.3 87.5 59.00 1 .5 1.3 88.8 60.00 2 1.1 2.5 91.3 65.00 1 .5 1.3 92.5 70.00 4 2.1 5.0 97.5 75.00 1 .5 1.3 98.8 78.00 1 .5 1.3 100.0 Total 80 42.3 100.0 Missing System 109 57.7 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 54 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Is school in special measures?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 184 97.4 99.5 99.5 Yes 1 .5 .5 100.0 Total 185 97.9 100.0 Missing System 4 2.1 Total 189 100.0
Is school under notice to improve?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 181 95.8 97.8 97.8 Yes 4 2.1 2.2 100.0 Total 185 97.9 100.0 Missing System 4 2.1 Total 189 100.0
Is school in serious weaknesses category?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 183 96.8 98.9 98.9 Yes 2 1.1 1.1 100.0 Total 185 97.9 100.0 Missing System 4 2.1 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 55 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM APPENDIX III SEXIST LANGUAGE AND BULLYING
Notes In the tables, the ‘Frequency’ column gives the actual numbers, ‘Percent’ is of the whole sample, and ‘Valid Percent’ and ‘Cumulative Percent’ apply only to those who answered the question; ‘Missing’ respondents did not answer the question, for example because they had not experienced the behaviour in question. Questions answered by only a small proportion of respondents (e.g. how schools responded to incidents) are reported in the text.
Sexist language / bullying by pupils
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 96 50.8 50.8 50.8 Yes 93 49.2 49.2 100.0 Total 189 100.0 100.0
Sexist language by pupils to staff
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Once a term 36 19.0 48.6 48.6 Once a month 15 7.9 20.3 68.9 Once a week 7 3.7 9.5 78.4 Several times a week 11 5.8 14.9 93.2 Every day 5 2.6 6.8 100.0 Total 74 39.2 100.0 Missing System 115 60.8 Total 189 100.0
Sexist langage by pupils to pupils
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Once a term 16 8.5 17.6 17.6 Once a month 13 6.9 14.3 31.9 Once a week 24 12.7 26.4 58.2 Several times a week 17 9.0 18.7 76.9 Every day 21 11.1 23.1 100.0 Total 91 48.1 100.0 Missing System 98 51.9 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 56 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Sexist bullying by pupils to pupils
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Once a term 27 14.3 37.5 37.5 Once a month 14 7.4 19.4 56.9 Once a week 12 6.3 16.7 73.6 Several times a week 9 4.8 12.5 86.1 Every day 10 5.3 13.9 100.0 Total 72 38.1 100.0 Missing System 117 61.9 Total 189 100.0
Sexist language by pupils to respondent
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Once a term 24 12.7 60.0 60.0 Once a month 7 3.7 17.5 77.5 Once a week 4 2.1 10.0 87.5 Several times a week 4 2.1 10.0 97.5 Every day 1 .5 2.5 100.0 Total 40 21.2 100.0 Missing System 149 78.8 Total 189 100.0
Location of sexist language / bullying incident
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Classroom 32 16.9 53.3 53.3 Playground 9 4.8 15.0 68.3 Laboratory 1 .5 1.7 70.0 Corridors 14 7.4 23.3 93.3 Dinner hall / canteen 1 .5 1.7 95.0 Immediately outside 2 1.1 3.3 98.3 school Other 1 .5 1.7 100.0 Total 60 31.7 100.0 Missing System 129 68.3 Total 189 100.0
Was pupil involved in sexist language / bullying..?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Female 7 3.7 11.5 11.5 Male 53 28.0 86.9 98.4 Both sexes 1 .5 1.6 100.0 Total 61 32.3 100.0 Missing System 128 67.7 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 57 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Did you report the incident of sexist language / bullying?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 36 19.0 60.0 60.0 Yes 24 12.7 40.0 100.0 Total 60 31.7 100.0 Missing System 129 68.3 Total 189 100.0
Was outcome of action about sexist language / bullying satisfactory?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Not at all 4 2.1 15.4 15.4 Not very 2 1.1 7.7 23.1 Mixed views 6 3.2 23.1 46.2 Fairly 9 4.8 34.6 80.8 Very 5 2.6 19.2 100.0 Total 26 13.8 100.0 Missing System 163 86.2 Total 189 100.0
How seriously were concerns about sexist language / bullying taken?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Not at all 5 2.6 19.2 19.2 Not very 3 1.6 11.5 30.8 Mixed views 3 1.6 11.5 42.3 Fairly 3 1.6 11.5 53.8 Very 12 6.3 46.2 100.0 Total 26 13.8 100.0 Missing System 163 86.2 Total 189 100.0
Was incident of sexist language / bulling raised as a grievance?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 25 13.2 89.3 89.3 Yes 3 1.6 10.7 100.0 Total 28 14.8 100.0 Missing System 161 85.2 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 58 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM APPENDIX IV SEXUAL HARRASSMENT
Notes In the tables, the ‘Frequency’ column gives the actual numbers, ‘Percent’ is of the whole sample, and ‘Valid Percent’ and ‘Cumulative Percent’ apply only to those who answered the question; ‘Missing’ respondents did not answer the question, for example because they had not experienced the behaviour in question. Questions answered by only a small proportion of respondents (e.g. how schools responded to incidents) are reported in the text.
Sexual harrassment by a pupil while carrying out employment
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 167 88.4 88.4 88.4 Yes 22 11.6 11.6 100.0 Total 189 100.0 100.0
Frequency of sexual harassment in the last twelve months
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Once in 12 months 7 3.7 41.2 41.2 At least twice 3 1.6 17.6 58.8 3-5 times 1 .5 5.9 64.7 More than 5 times 5 2.6 29.4 94.1 Every day 1 .5 5.9 100.0 Total 17 9.0 100.0 Missing System 172 91.0 Total 189 100.0
Location of sexual harassment
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Classroom 11 5.8 55.0 55.0 Sports fields 1 .5 5.0 60.0 Corridors 6 3.2 30.0 90.0 Dinner hall / canteen 2 1.1 10.0 100.0 Total 20 10.6 100.0 Missing System 169 89.4 Total 189 100.0
Was pupil involved in sexual harassment...?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Female 1 .5 5.0 5.0 Male 19 10.1 95.0 100.0 Total 20 10.6 100.0 Missing System 169 89.4 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 59 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Did you report the incident of sexual harassment?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 12 6.3 60.0 60.0 Yes 8 4.2 40.0 100.0 Total 20 10.6 100.0 Missing System 169 89.4 Total 189 100.0
Was outcome of action about sexual harassment satisfactory?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Not at all 4 2.1 50.0 50.0 Mixed views 4 2.1 50.0 100.0 Total 8 4.2 100.0 Missing System 181 95.8 Total 189 100.0
How seriously were concerns about sexual harassment taken?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Not at all 4 2.1 50.0 50.0 Mixed views 3 1.6 37.5 87.5 Fairly 1 .5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 4.2 100.0 Missing System 181 95.8 Total 189 100.0
Was incident of sexual harassment raised as a grievance?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 8 4.2 100.0 100.0 Missing System 181 95.8 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 60 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM APPENDIX V THREAT OF SEXUAL ASSAULT
Notes In the tables, the ‘Frequency’ column gives the actual numbers, ‘Percent’ is of the whole sample, and ‘Valid Percent’ and ‘Cumulative Percent’ apply only to those who answered the question; ‘Missing’ respondents did not answer the question, for example because they had not experienced the behaviour in question. Questions answered by only a small proportion of respondents (e.g. how schools responded to incidents) are reported in the text.
Threat of sexual assault by a pupil
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 187 98.9 98.9 98.9 Yes 2 1.1 1.1 100.0 Total 189 100.0 100.0
Frequency of threat of sexual assault in the last twelve months
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Once 2 1.1 100.0 100.0 Missing System 187 98.9 Total 189 100.0
Location of threat of sexual assault
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Corridors 1 .5 50.0 50.0 Immediately 1 .5 50.0 100.0 outside school Total 2 1.1 100.0 Missing System 187 98.9 Total 189 100.0
Was pupil involved in threat of sexual assault...?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 1 .5 100.0 100.0 Missing System 188 99.5 Total 189 100.0
Did you report the incident of threat of sexual assault?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 1 .5 100.0 100.0 Missing System 188 99.5 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 61 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM APPENDIX VI ACTUAL SEXUAL ASSAULT AND SAFETY
Notes In the tables, the ‘Frequency’ column gives the actual numbers, ‘Percent’ is of the whole sample, and ‘Valid Percent’ and ‘Cumulative Percent’ apply only to those who answered the question; ‘Missing’ respondents did not answer the question, for example because they had not been teaching for ten years.
Actual sexual assault while in course of employment
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 188 99.5 99.5 99.5 Yes 1 .5 .5 100.0 Total 189 100.0 100.0
Feelings about safety in and around school / college
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very safe 83 43.9 45.4 45.4 Safe 45 23.8 24.6 69.9 Fairly safe 51 27.0 27.9 97.8 Not very safe 4 2.1 2.2 100.0 Total 183 96.8 100.0 Missing System 6 3.2 Total 189 100.0
Felt safety about workplace compared to 10+ years ago
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid More safe 39 20.6 45.9 45.9 Less safe 46 24.3 54.1 100.0 Total 85 45.0 100.0 Missing System 104 55.0 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 62 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM APPENDIX VII STRATEGIES TO REDUCE SEXIST LANGUAGE, SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT
Notes In the tables, the ‘Frequency’ column gives the actual numbers, ‘Percent’ is of the whole sample, and ‘Valid Percent’ and ‘Cumulative Percent’ apply only to those who answered the question; ‘Missing’ respondents did not answer the question.
Strategies to challenge sexist verbal abuse would reduce sexist language
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 4 2.1 2.6 2.6 Maybe 37 19.6 24.2 26.8 Yes 112 59.3 73.2 100.0 Total 153 81.0 100.0 Missing System 36 19.0 Total 189 100.0
Single-sex groupings to explore sensitive issues would reduce sexist language
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 28 14.8 17.3 17.3 Maybe 62 32.8 38.3 55.6 Yes 72 38.1 44.4 100.0 Total 162 85.7 100.0 Missing System 27 14.3 Total 189 100.0
Strategic leadership from SMT would reduce sexist language
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 9 4.8 5.4 5.4 Maybe 43 22.8 25.6 31.0 Yes 116 61.4 69.0 100.0 Total 168 88.9 100.0 Missing System 21 11.1 Total 189 100.0
Recording incidents in an incident book would reduce sexist language
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 27 14.3 15.6 15.6 Maybe 43 22.8 24.9 40.5 Yes 103 54.5 59.5 100.0 Total 173 91.5 100.0 Missing System 16 8.5 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 63 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Anti-bullying policies referring explicitly would sexist language
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 7 3.7 4.1 4.1 Maybe 39 20.6 22.9 27.1 Yes 124 65.6 72.9 100.0 Total 170 89.9 100.0 Missing System 19 10.1 Total 189 100.0
Sexism / gender equality training for governors / SMT would reduce sexist language
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 11 5.8 6.4 6.4 Maybe 49 25.9 28.7 35.1 Yes 111 58.7 64.9 100.0 Total 171 90.5 100.0 Missing System 18 9.5 Total 189 100.0
INSET on gender equality would reduce sexist language
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 12 6.3 7.4 7.4 Maybe 52 27.5 31.9 39.3 Yes 99 52.4 60.7 100.0 Total 163 86.2 100.0 Missing System 26 13.8 Total 189 100.0
Other measures would reduce sexist language
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 34 18.0 100.0 100.0 Missing System 155 82.0 Total 189 100.0
Strategies to challenge sexist verbal abuse would reduce sexual harassment
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 3 1.6 1.9 1.9 Maybe 42 22.2 26.8 28.7 Yes 112 59.3 71.3 100.0 Total 157 83.1 100.0 Missing System 32 16.9 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 64 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Single-sex groupings to explore sensitive issues would reduce sexual harassment
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 32 16.9 20.0 20.0 Maybe 61 32.3 38.1 58.1 Yes 67 35.4 41.9 100.0 Total 160 84.7 100.0 Missing System 29 15.3 Total 189 100.0
Strategic leadership from SMT would reduce sexual harassment
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 8 4.2 4.8 4.8 Maybe 46 24.3 27.5 32.3 Yes 113 59.8 67.7 100.0 Total 167 88.4 100.0 Missing System 22 11.6 Total 189 100.0
Recording incidents in an incident book would reduce sexual harassment
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 19 10.1 11.6 11.6 Maybe 44 23.3 26.8 38.4 Yes 101 53.4 61.6 100.0 Total 164 86.8 100.0 Missing System 25 13.2 Total 189 100.0
Anti-bullying policies referring explicitly would reduce sexual harassment
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 10 5.3 6.1 6.1 Maybe 38 20.1 23.2 29.3 Yes 116 61.4 70.7 100.0 Total 164 86.8 100.0 Missing System 25 13.2 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 65 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Sexism / gender equality training for governors / SMT would reduce sexual harassment
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 11 5.8 6.6 6.6 Maybe 57 30.2 34.3 41.0 Yes 98 51.9 59.0 100.0 Total 166 87.8 100.0 Missing System 23 12.2 Total 189 100.0
INSET on gender equality would reduce sexual harassment
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 10 5.3 6.4 6.4 Maybe 57 30.2 36.5 42.9 Yes 89 47.1 57.1 100.0 Total 156 82.5 100.0 Missing System 33 17.5 Total 189 100.0
Other measures would reduce sexual harassment
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Maybe 1 .5 3.6 3.6 Yes 27 14.3 96.4 100.0 Total 28 14.8 100.0 Missing System 161 85.2 Total 189 100.0
Panic buttons / alarms would prevent sexual assaults
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 14 7.4 8.7 8.7 Maybe 62 32.8 38.5 47.2 Yes 85 45.0 52.8 100.0 Total 161 85.2 100.0 Missing System 28 14.8 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 66 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Strategic leadership from SMT would prevent sexual assaults
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 9 4.8 5.5 5.5 Maybe 58 30.7 35.2 40.6 Yes 98 51.9 59.4 100.0 Total 165 87.3 100.0 Missing System 24 12.7 Total 189 100.0
Whole-institution curriculum policy on sexism and equality would prevent sexual assaults
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 11 5.8 6.5 6.5 Maybe 46 24.3 27.1 33.5 Yes 113 59.8 66.5 100.0 Total 170 89.9 100.0 Missing System 19 10.1 Total 189 100.0
Prevention education against violence against women would prevent sexual assaults
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 5 2.6 2.8 2.8 Maybe 50 26.5 28.4 31.3 Yes 121 64.0 68.8 100.0 Total 176 93.1 100.0 Missing System 13 6.9 Total 189 100.0
Security personnel would prevent sexual assaults
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 35 18.5 22.3 22.3 Maybe 81 42.9 51.6 73.9 Yes 41 21.7 26.1 100.0 Total 157 83.1 100.0 Missing System 32 16.9 Total 189 100.0
Other measures would prevent sexual assaults
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 16 8.5 100.0 100.0 Missing System 173 91.5 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 67 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM APPENDIX VIII SCHOOL POLICIES AND CHANGE OVER CAREERS
Notes In the tables, the ‘Frequency’ column gives the actual numbers, ‘Percent’ is of the whole sample, and ‘Valid Percent’ and ‘Cumulative Percent’ apply only to those who answered the question; ‘Missing’ respondents did not answer the question, for example because they had not experienced the behaviour in question. Questions answered by only a small proportion of pupils (e.g. how schools responded to incidents) are reported in the text.
Does institution have a whole school equal opportunities policy?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 2 1.1 1.1 1.1 Don't know 29 15.3 15.8 16.9 Yes 152 80.4 83.1 100.0 Total 183 96.8 100.0 Missing System 6 3.2 Total 189 100.0
Does institution have a pupil behaviour policy covering sexual harassment and bullying?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 49 25.9 26.8 26.8 Don't know 87 46.0 47.5 74.3 Yes 47 24.9 25.7 100.0 Total 183 96.8 100.0 Missing System 6 3.2 Total 189 100.0
Does institution have a workplace harrassment policy covering sexual harassment and bullying?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 40 21.2 22.0 22.0 Don't know 105 55.6 57.7 79.7 Yes 37 19.6 20.3 100.0 Total 182 96.3 100.0 Missing System 7 3.7 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 68 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Have incidents of sexist language from pupils increased since started teaching?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 27 14.3 21.8 21.8 Don't know 33 17.5 26.6 48.4 Yes 64 33.9 51.6 100.0 Total 124 65.6 100.0 Missing System 65 34.4 Total 189 100.0
Have incidents of sexual harrassment from pupils increased since started teaching?
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 27 14.3 22.0 22.0 Don't know 57 30.2 46.3 68.3 Yes 39 20.6 31.7 100.0 Total 123 65.1 100.0 Missing System 66 34.9 Total 189 100.0
A Serious Business.doc 69 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM APPENDIX IX RESPONSES - PRIMARY BY AGE & GENDER
Note Figures in tables are actual numbers of cases
Sexist language / bullying by pupils * Gender * Age Crosstabulation
Count Gender Age Male Female Total 21-28 Sexist language / No 1 11 12 bullying by pupils Yes 0 5 5 Total 1 16 17 29-39 Sexist language / No 2 12 14 bullying by pupils Yes 0 8 8 Total 2 20 22 40-49 Sexist language / No 2 11 13 bullying by pupils Yes 0 4 4 Total 2 15 17 50-59 Sexist language / No 4 15 19 bullying by pupils Yes 0 8 8 Total 4 23 27 60+ Sexist language / No 1 1 bullying by pupils Yes 1 1 Total 2 2
Sexist language by pupils to staff * Gender * Age Crosstabulation
Count Gender Age Female Total 21-28 Sexist language Once a term 2 2 by pupils to staff Once a month 2 2 Once a week 1 1 Total 5 5 29-39 Sexist language Once a term 4 4 by pupils to staff Once a month 1 1 Total 5 5 40-49 Sexist language Once a month 1 1 by pupils to staff Total 1 1 50-59 Sexist language Once a term 2 2 by pupils to staff Once a month 1 1 Total 3 3 60+ Sexist language Once a term 1 1 by pupils to staff Total 1 1
A Serious Business.doc 70 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Sexist langage by pupils to pupils * Gender * Age Crosstabulation
Count Gender Age Female Total 21-28 Sexist langage Once a term 1 1 by pupils to Once a month 2 2 pupils Once a week 1 1 Several times a week 1 1 Every day 1 1 Total 6 6 29-39 Sexist langage Once a term 1 1 by pupils to Once a month 2 2 pupils Once a week 4 4 Total 7 7 40-49 Sexist langage Once a month 1 1 by pupils to Once a week 2 2 pupils Several times a week 1 1 Total 4 4 50-59 Sexist langage Once a term 6 6 by pupils to Once a week 1 1 pupils Every day 1 1 Total 8 8 60+ Sexist langage Once a month by pupils to 1 1 pupils Total 1 1
A Serious Business.doc 71 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Sexist bullying by pupils to pupils * Gender * Age Crosstabulation
Count Gender Age Female Total 21-28 Sexist bullying Once a term 2 2 by pupils to Once a month 1 1 pupils Once a week 2 2 Total 5 5 29-39 Sexist bullying Once a term 3 3 by pupils to pupils Once a week 2 2 Total 5 5 40-49 Sexist bullying Once a term 1 1 by pupils to Once a month 2 2 pupils Once a week 1 1 Total 4 4 50-59 Sexist bullying Once a term 3 3 by pupils to pupils Once a month 1 1 Total 4 4 60+ Sexist bullying Once a week by pupils to 1 1 pupils Total 1 1
Sexist language by pupils to respondent * Gender * Age Crosstabulation
Count Gender Age Female Total 21-28 Sexist language by Once a term 3 3 pupils to respondent Once a month 1 1 Total 4 4 29-39 Sexist language by Once a term 4 4 pupils to respondent Total 4 4 40-49 Sexist language by Once a term 1 1 pupils to respondent Total 1 1 50-59 Sexist language by Once a term 1 1 pupils to respondent Total 1 1
A Serious Business.doc 72 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Did you report the incident of sexist language / bullying? * Gender * Age Crosstabulation
Count Gender Age Female Total 21-28 Did you report the No 2 2 incident of sexist language / bullying? Yes 3 3 Total 5 5 29-39 Did you report the No 3 3 incident of sexist language / bullying? Yes 3 3 Total 6 6 40-49 Did you report the No incident of sexist 2 2 language / bullying? Total 2 2 50-59 Did you report the No 2 2 incident of sexist language / bullying? Yes 3 3 Total 5 5
Did you report the incident of sexual harassment? * Gender * Age Crosstabulation
Count Gender Age Female Total 50-59 Did you report the incident No 1 1 of sexual harassment? Total 1 1
Threat of sexual assault by a pupil * Gender * Age Crosstabulation
Count Gender Age Male Female Total 21-28 Threat of sexual No 1 16 17 assault by a pupil Total 1 16 17 29-39 Threat of sexual No 2 20 22 assault by a pupil Total 2 20 22 40-49 Threat of sexual No 2 15 17 assault by a pupil Total 2 15 17 50-59 Threat of sexual No 4 23 27 assault by a pupil Total 4 23 27 60+ Threat of sexual No 2 2 assault by a pupil Total 2 2
A Serious Business.doc 73 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM APPENDIX X REPORTS FROM SECONDARY RESPONDENTS BY AGE & GENDER
Note Figures in tables are actual numbers of cases
Sexist language / bullying by pupils * Gender * Age Crosstabulation
Count Gender Age Male Female Total 21-28 Sexist language / No 1 7 8 bullying by pupils Yes 4 5 9 Total 5 12 17 29-39 Sexist language / No 1 5 6 bullying by pupils Yes 6 14 20 Total 7 19 26 40-49 Sexist language / No 0 2 2 bullying by pupils Yes 3 11 14 Total 3 13 16 50-59 Sexist language / No 1 1 2 bullying by pupils Yes 2 12 14 Total 3 13 16 60+ Sexist language / No 1 0 1 bullying by pupils Yes 0 3 3 Total 1 3 4
A Serious Business.doc 74 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Sexist language by pupils to staff * Gender * Age Crosstabulation
Count Gender Age Male Female Total 21-28 Sexist language Once a term 3 2 5 by pupils to staff Once a week 1 2 3 Several times a week 0 1 1 Total 4 5 9 29-39 Sexist language Once a term 1 5 6 by pupils to staff Once a month 1 3 4 Once a week 0 2 2 Several times a week 2 3 5 Every day 1 0 1 Total 5 13 18 40-49 Sexist language Once a term 1 4 5 by pupils to staff Once a month 2 2 4 Several times a week 0 2 2 Total 3 8 11 50-59 Sexist language Once a term 1 5 6 by pupils to staff Once a month 0 1 1 Once a week 0 1 1 Several times a week 1 2 3 Every day 0 2 2 Total 2 11 13 60+ Sexist language Once a term 1 1 by pupils to staff Total 1 1
A Serious Business.doc 75 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Sexist langage by pupils to pupils * Gender * Age Crosstabulation
Count Gender Age Male Female Total 21-28 Sexist langage Once a term 1 0 1 by pupils to Once a month 1 1 2 pupils Once a week 1 0 1 Several times a week 0 2 2 Every day 1 2 3 Total 4 5 9 29-39 Sexist langage Once a term 1 2 3 by pupils to Once a month 0 1 1 pupils Once a week 1 2 3 Several times a week 1 7 8 Every day 3 2 5 Total 6 14 20 40-49 Sexist langage Once a month 0 1 1 by pupils to Once a week 2 4 6 pupils Several times a week 1 2 3 Every day 0 3 3 Total 3 10 13 50-59 Sexist langage Once a term 0 2 2 by pupils to Once a month 0 1 1 pupils Once a week 0 4 4 Several times a week 0 1 1 Every day 2 4 6 Total 2 12 14 60+ Sexist langage Once a month 1 1 by pupils to pupils Several times a week 1 1 Total 2 2
A Serious Business.doc 76 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Sexist bullying by pupils to pupils * Gender * Age Crosstabulation
Count Gender Age Male Female Total 21-28 Sexist bullying Once a term 1 0 1 by pupils to Once a month 0 2 2 pupils Once a week 1 1 2 Every day 1 2 3 Total 3 5 8 29-39 Sexist bullying Once a term 3 4 7 by pupils to Once a month 1 1 2 pupils Once a week 0 1 1 Several times a week 1 3 4 Every day 1 1 2 Total 6 10 16 40-49 Sexist bullying Once a term 0 3 3 by pupils to Once a month 2 2 4 pupils Once a week 0 1 1 Several times a week 0 2 2 Every day 0 1 1 Total 2 9 11 50-59 Sexist bullying Once a term 0 4 4 by pupils to Once a month 0 1 1 pupils Once a week 0 1 1 Several times a week 0 2 2 Every day 1 2 3 Total 1 10 11 60+ Sexist bullying Once a month 1 1 by pupils to pupils Once a week 1 1 Total 2 2
A Serious Business.doc 77 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Sexist language by pupils to respondent * Gender * Age Crosstabulation
Count Gender Age Male Female Total 21-28 Sexist language Once a term 1 1 2 by pupils to Once a month 0 2 2 respondent Several times a week 0 1 1 Total 1 4 5 29-39 Sexist language Once a term 2 3 5 by pupils to Once a month 0 2 2 respondent Once a week 1 1 2 Several times a week 0 1 1 Every day 1 0 1 Total 4 7 11 40-49 Sexist language Once a term 4 4 by pupils to respondent Once a month 1 1 Total 5 5 50-59 Sexist language Once a term 2 2 by pupils to Once a month 1 1 respondent Once a week 2 2 Total 5 5 60+ Sexist language Once a term by pupils to 1 1 respondent Total 1 1
A Serious Business.doc 78 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Did you report the incident of sexist language / bullying? * Gender * Age Crosstabulation
Count Gender Age Male Female Total 21-28 Did you report the No 2 3 5 incident of sexist language / bullying? Yes 0 1 1 Total 2 4 6 29-39 Did you report the No 3 5 8 incident of sexist language / bullying? Yes 1 5 6 Total 4 10 14 40-49 Did you report the No 4 4 incident of sexist language / bullying? Yes 1 1 Total 5 5 50-59 Did you report the No 0 4 4 incident of sexist language / bullying? Yes 1 4 5 Total 1 8 9 60+ Did you report the No 1 1 incident of sexist language / bullying? Yes 1 1 Total 2 2
Did you report the incident of sexual harassment? * Gender * Age Crosstabulation
Count Gender Age Male Female Total 21-28 Did you report the incident No 2 2 of sexual harassment? Total 2 2 29-39 Did you report the incident No 1 2 3 of sexual harassment? Yes 1 5 6 Total 2 7 9 40-49 Did you report the incident No 1 1 of sexual harassment? Total 1 1 50-59 Did you report the incident No 1 1 of sexual harassment? Yes 1 1 Total 2 2 60+ Did you report the incident No 1 1 of sexual harassment? Total 1 1
A Serious Business.doc 79 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM Threat of sexual assault by a pupil * Gender * Age Crosstabulation
Count Gender Age Male Female Total 21-28 Threat of sexual assault No 5 11 16 by a pupil Yes 0 1 1 Total 5 12 17 29-39 Threat of sexual assault No 7 18 25 by a pupil Yes 0 1 1 Total 7 19 26 40-49 Threat of sexual assault No 3 13 16 by a pupil Total 3 13 16 50-59 Threat of sexual assault No 3 13 16 by a pupil Total 3 13 16 60+ Threat of sexual assault No 1 3 4 by a pupil Total 1 3 4
A Serious Business.doc 80 30 January 2007 Created: 1 November 2006/UoW Revised: 8 November 2006/JM