Teaching a musical instrument in school

Presentation Music instruction is an investigation field that manages preparing of people inspired by music. It involves all circles of getting the hang of including psychomotor, intellectual and the compelling area. Psychomotor space manages capacity advancement while intellectual area manages information accomplishment. Powerful area is the most huge and involves the positive gathering of music and sensitivity.Advertising We will compose a custom article test on Teaching an instrument in school explicitly for you for just $16.05 $11/page Learn More The combination of music training has gotten basic in practically all scholarly organizations since music has gotten an essential constituent of human culture. The drive towards melodic accomplishment is of incredible inborn incentive to both the student and the general public. As an enormous subject, music should be prepared in schools in a few different ways (Golby 2004 p. 218). In rudimentary learning foundations, youngsters are prepa red to utilize music apparatuses. Instruments educated incorporate string instruments, for example, guitar and violin, woodwind instruments, for example, the flute, metal instruments, for example, the trumpet, percussion instruments, for example, the drum, the console, lastly voice instruments, for example, the jazz. They are additionally instructed how to act in little singing gatherings and the fundamentals of melodic sound. Despite the fact that music instruction in numerous nations has traditionally stressed on western music, the contemporary learning organizations are attempting to coordinate the utilization of non-western music. Understudies in learning foundations are regularly allowed to sing in melodic outfits. Additional music classes are likewise offered (Steiner Paul 2009). Music instruction has two unmistakable strands, which incorporate general training and private instrumental educational cost. This paper will decide the best method of showing an instrument in school. It will concentrate on formal individual instrumental educational cost and class instructing as encouraged by the ‘Wider Opportunities’ activity . It will additionally look at the qualities and shortcomings of the two methodologies and make prove determinations. It will at last offer proposals to improve the current conveyance of instrumental educational cost to empower access for all, while perceiving current monetary and asset restrictions (Green 2001 p. 128). Conversation Formal individual instrumental educational cost Formal Individual instrumental educational cost is an irreplaceable early starting to training in music and combines incredible establishing for progressively endorsed exercises and gigantic fun. The exercises are extensively established and contain lessons in cadence, sound-related abilities, style, understanding, visual perusing, and mechanical exercises.Advertising Looking for paper on craftsmanship and plan? How about we check whether we can suppo rt you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More To accomplish fulfilling progress, formal individual instrumental educational cost guarantees that every student sets out on singular music rehearses about every day. This relies upon age and ability of the student. It happens at set times (Steiner Paul 2009). For students indicating a specific affinity, individual instrumental educational cost by able instrumental mentors is accessible as an upgrade of the formal instructive prospectus. Educational cost in this training technique is generally arranged between the educator and the learner’s guardians. The instrumental educator legitimately owes the guardians. Peripatetic staff offers individual instrumental educational cost to improve melodic possibilities in individual instrumental educational cost (Golby 2004 p. 218). Formal individual instrumental educational cost includes all highlights of instrumental preparing and discovering that happens either at the learner’ s living arrangement or in school. It might include just a single student or an extremely little gathering of students. It is for the most part of explicit worry to the peripatetic teacher who much of the time works in isolation (Hallam1998 p. 26). Qualities and Weaknesses of Formal individual instrumental educational cost One of the qualities of formal individual instrumental educational cost is that the coaches are incredibly talented. Instructional meetings are custom fitted towards individual necessities henceforth giving every student the best music help. In formal individual instrumental educational cost, understudies are allocated a teacher that meets their needs to the most extreme. The exercise content depends on the learner’s targets and premiums. Understudies in this learning technique have the advantage of learning for joy since melodic tests are not necessary (Green 2001 p. 128).However, on occasion students in formal individual instrumental educational cost are qualified for outside evaluations. All appraisals and levels are delighted and this empowers all music styles to be thought of (Golby 2004 p. 218). In formal individual instrumental educational cost, the students are instructed how to play their favored instruments. Every student is educated at an alternate speed from the other and the prospectus is made so that it fits the abilities of each learner.Advertising We will compose a custom article test on Teaching an instrument in school explicitly for you for just $16.05 $11/page Learn More The utilization of day by day or week by week schoolwork in this strategy is an affirmation of a steady advancement. Time is normally dispensed for various exercises, for example, hypothesis learning, works out, and instrumental preparing. Time is additionally assigned for individual practice heavily influenced by a teacher (Steiner Paul 2009). Students are permitted to find differing viewpoints and settings of music by and by. They become increasin gly innovative and their self-thankfulness and melodic limit increments. Extra consideration offered by close family members in formal individual instrumental educational cost supports the learner’s premiums. Another quality of this methodology is that there is significant connection between the student and his educator. It is additionally in this sort of discovering that teachers are frequently analyzed and acquire preparing all as the year progressed. This helps them to build up their abilities in educating (Hallam1998 p. 26). One of the reactions, which have been made with respect to the arrangement of formal individual instrumental educational cost, is that it is elitist. This has been made on various grounds. To start with, the idea of educational cost on offer is for the most part inside the western old style melodic custom, in spite of the fact that this is bit by bit evolving. Besides, and maybe progressively significant, this framework is specific. Not every person h as had the chance to figure out how to play an instrument. Since arrangement has been restricted, just those with saw melodic capacity have been allowed the chance to learn. Cash is an issue with regards to individual instrumental educational cost. Access to educational cost is limited to the individuals who can pay, henceforth denying chances to poor families (Cain1989). Another analysis of formal individual instrumental educational cost is that private teachers may neglect to pass on viability and the learners’ guardians wind up paying immense measures of school charges for this educational cost with insignificant or no-decent result. Another issue associated with this sort of training music is instrumental accessibility. The learner’s guardians as a rule give the instruments utilized. In conditions where the school offers the learning instruments required, at that point the guardians are considered responsible for lost or accidentally harmed instruments (Steiner Pau l 2009).Advertising Searching for paper on workmanship and structure? We should check whether we can support you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Find out More Detachment of students may likewise happen contingent upon their status. This may hinder the learning procedure particularly in situations where the students originate from various families as far as riches. Students from rich families may have over the top expensive instruments, and this may not be conceivable to those from distraught families. Issues of timetabling are a significant disadvantage in this learning style. This is on the grounds that there are no pioneers and the coach plans for his time. This may prompt poor time the executives since he isn't liable to any gathering (Hallam1998 p. 26). A confirm decision about how this encouraging strategy functions is the Cantiana Music establishment, which offers individual instrumental educational cost to children and adults from novice to cutting edge levels. The included students are required to have their own instruments at home with the goal that they can generally training while away from school. Class instructing of instrumen ts as encouraged by the ‘Wider Opportunities’ activity Wider open doors in music allows students to figure out how to play an instrument for one scholastic year for nothing. The understudies are given an instrument for an entire year and given a credit of the instrument on the off chance that they proceed with learning into the subsequent year. The exercise for the most part takes an hour consistently. This is finished by two expert instrument educators and a prospectus music teacher. In the first place exercises, the highlights of the instrument showing focuses on the essential procedure advancement while the last exercises permit understudies to utilize their aptitudes in a band or symphony groups which gives them experience as they work in assortment of exhibitions. Simultaneous to the instrumental turn of events, the understudies are given musicianship exercises by educators and visiting prospectus music instructors. The endeavors supplement the learning progress an d the plan of exhibitions guarantee the understudy makes suitable and significant connections with others. The framework is made not exclusively to arrive at understudies who are included straightforwardly yet in addition to improve melodic participating in the entire school (Hallam1998 p. 26). Augmenting support activity has become an indispensable piece of the work done by all UK drama organizations and melodic associations. A few partners are associated with the class instructing of instruments as encouraged by the ‘Wider Opportu

Organizational change Essay

Hierarchical change is a continuous procedure with significant ramifications for authoritative viability. An association and its individuals must be continually watching out for changes from inside the association and from the outside condition, and they should figure out how to conform to change rapidly and viably. Hierarchical change is the development of an association away from its current state and toward some future state to build its viability. Powers for authoritative change incorporate serious powers; financial, political, and worldwide powers; segment and social powers; and moral powers. Associations are regularly hesitant to change since protection from change at the association, gathering, and individual levels has offered ascend to authoritative latency. Wellsprings of association level protection from change incorporate force and struggle, contrasts in useful direction, unthinking structure, and hierarchical culture. Wellsprings of gathering level protection from change incorporate gathering standards, bunch cohesiveness, and mindless conformity and heightening of responsibility. Wellsprings of individual-level protection from change incorporate vulnerability and weakness, particular discernment and maintenance, and propensity. As indicated by Lewin’s power field hypothesis of progress, associations are adjusted between powers pushing for change and powers impervious to change. To get an association to change, chiefs must figure out how to build the powers for change, decrease protection from change, or do both all the while. Kinds of progress fall into two general classifications: developmental and progressive. The principle instruments of transformative change are sociotechnical frameworks hypothesis, absolute quality administration, and the improvement of adaptable laborers and work groups. The fundamental instruments of progressive change are reengineering, rebuilding, and development. Frequently, the progressive sorts of progress that come about because of rebuilding and reengineering are vital simply because an association and its administrators disregarded or were uninformed of changes in the earth and didn't roll out gradual improvements varying. Activity look into is a technique that administrators can use to design the change procedure. The primary strides in real life look into are (a) determination and investigation of the association, (b) deciding the ideal future state, (c) actualizing activity, (d) assessing the activity, and (e) systematizing activity examine. Hierarchical turn of events (OD) is a progression of procedures and strategies to build the versatility of associations. OD methods can be utilized to conquer protection from change and to assist the association with changing itself. OD procedures for managing protection from change incorporate training and correspondence, cooperation and strengthening, help, bartering and exchange, control, and intimidation. OD strategies for advancing change incorporate, at the individual level, guiding, affectability preparing, and process interview; at the gathering level, group building and intergroup preparing; and at the authoritative level, hierarchical showdown gatherings. Part OUTLINE 10. 1 What Is Organizational Change? Hierarchical change is the procedure by which associations move from their present or present state to some ideal future state to build their viability. An association in decrease may need to rebuild its abilities and assets to improve its fit with an evolving domain. In any event, flourishing, high-performing associations, for example, Google, Apple, and Facebook need to constantly change the manner in which they work after some time to address continuous difficulties. Focuses of Change Organizational change remembers changes for four zones: 1. HR are an organization’s most significant resource. Since these aptitudes and capacities give an association an upper hand, associations should constantly screen their structures to locate the best method of propelling and arranging HR to obtain and utilize their abilities. Changes made in HR remember venture for preparing, mingling representatives, changing standards to spur a different workforce, observing advancement and prize frameworks, and changing top administration. 2. Each hierarchical capacity needs to create techniques that permit it to deal with the specific condition it faces. Urgent capacities develop in significance while those whose helpfulness is declining shrink. In this manner, key capacities develop in significance. Associations can change structure, culture, and innovation to improve the worth made by capacities. 3 Hierarchical change frequently includes changing the connections among individuals and capacities to expand their capacity to make esteem. 10. 2 Forces for and Resistance to Organizational Change Forces for Change If chiefs are delayed to react to the powers of progress, the association will linger behind its rivals and its adequacy will be undermined. (Allude to Figure 10. 1) Competitive powers prod change, in light of the fact that except if an association coordinates or outperforms its rivals it won't endure. Overseeing change is vital while going after clients. To lead on the elements of productivity or quality, an association should continually embrace the most recent innovation as it opens up. To lead on the element of advancement and acquire a mechanical preferred position over contenders, an organization must have aptitudes in dealing with the procedure of development. Monetary, political, and worldwide powers, for example, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or other financial associations, are huge powers of progress. The European Union (EU) incorporates more than 27 individuals anxious to exploit an enormous secured advertise. Worldwide difficulties confronting associations incorporate the need to change an authoritative structure to permit venture into outside business sectors, the need to adjust to an assortment of national societies, and the need to help exile administrators adjust to the financial, political, and social estimations of the nations in which they are found. Segment and social powers incorporate an inexorably differing workforce. Changes in the segment attributes of the workforce expect administrators to change their styles of dealing with all representatives and to figure out how to comprehend, manage, and persuade assorted individuals successfully. Numerous laborers need to adjust work and recreation. Chiefs need to desert generalizations and acknowledge the significance of value in the enrollment and advancement of recently recruited employees. Moral powers, for example, expanding government, political, and social requests for progressively dependable and fair corporate conduct are convincing associations to advance moral conduct. Numerous organizations have made the situation of morals official. On the off chance that associations work in nations that give little consideration to human rights or to the prosperity of hierarchical individuals, they need to figure out how to change these measures and to ensure their abroad representatives. Protections from Change Resistance to change brings down an organization’s viability and lessens its odds of endurance. Protections or hindrances to change that cause idleness are found at the association, gathering, and individual levels. (Allude to Figure 10. 1) Organization-Level Resistance to Change Power and strife: When change causes power battles and hierarchical clash, an association is probably going to oppose it. In the event that change benefits one capacity to the detriment of another, contention obstructs the change procedure. In the old IBM, for instance, administrators of its centralized server PC division warded off endeavors to divert IBM’s assets to deliver the PCs that clients needed so as to save their own capacity. Contrasts in utilitarian direction: This implies various capacities and divisions frequently observe the wellspring of an issue diversely on the grounds that they see an issue or issue principally from their own perspective. This limited focus increments hierarchical inactivity. Robotic structure: Mechanistic structures are increasingly impervious to change. Individuals who work inside an unthinking structure are required to act in specific manners and don't build up the ability to modify their conduct to evolving conditions. A robotic structure commonly creates as an association develops and is a chief wellspring of inactivity, particularly in enormous associations. The broad utilization of common alteration and decentralized expert in a natural structure makes it less impervious to change. Hierarchical culture: Organizational culture, qualities, and standards cause protection from change. On the off chance that authoritative change disturbs underestimated qualities and standards and powers individuals to change what they do and how they do it, an organization’s culture will make opposition change. Gathering Level Resistance to Change Many gatherings create solid casual standards that indicate suitable and wrong practices and administer the connections between bunch individuals. Frequently, change adjusts errand and job connections in a gathering; when it does, it upsets bunch standards and the casual desires that bunch individuals have of each other. Therefore, individuals from a gathering may oppose change on the grounds that another arrangement of standards must be created to address the issues of the new circumstance. Gathering cohesiveness, the appeal of a gathering to its individuals, additionally influences bunch execution. A profoundly firm gathering may oppose endeavors by the board to change what it does or even who is an individual from the gathering. Mindless obedience and acceleration of responsibility additionally make changing a group’s conduct extremely troublesome. Singular Level Resistance to Change People will in general oppose change since they feel questionable and unreliable about what its result will be. Specific observation and maintenance propose that individuals see data steady with their perspectives. On the off chance that change doesn’t advantage them, they don't embrace it. People’s inclination for recognizable activities and occasions is a further obstruction to change. Lewin’s Force-Field Theory of Change Force-field hypothesis is a hypothesis of authoritative ch

Global Economy essay

Global Economy essay Global Economy Home›Economics Posts›Global Economy Economics PostsSince the United States, Europe and Japan are the major contributors to the global economy, the decision and actions of the key personnel in the Federal Reserve, European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan had a significant impact on the overall Global Economy. Ben Bernanke, Jean-Claude Trichet and Masaaki Shirakawa of the U. S. Federal Reserve, European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan respectively played a critical role in the 2008-2009 global economic depression.Among the notable efforts they made were to lower the interest rates of central banks, thus spurring the economic growth within their regions. They also encouraged effective use of “swap” lines in extending rescue missions to the suffering economies through dollar lending. In unison with China, India and other major nation’s central banks they advocated for global moves such as economic stimulus and discouraged protectionism policies.Although so me nations were relaxed in abandoning the protectionism policies and still embarked in currency appreciation, the global economic stimulus seemed to be the best move towards countering the then economic crisis. The monetary and fiscal policy implementation made the triumvirate more powerful than most country leaders in the world. Their decision determined the deterioration or well-being of the global economy.The U. S. monetary policy can be improved by replacing their deficit financing habits with an expansionary monetary policy, which combat unemployment by reducing the interest rates and thus making businesses acquire more credit for expansion (Bordo, 2008).   The move can assist the U. S to recover from the rising unemployment caused by the economic depression of 2008-2009.The U. S should also avoid printing more money since such measures heightens inflation. Instead the Federal Reserve should opt at minimizing the overstretched defense and military budget which consumes a signif icant proportion of the U. S. GDP. A contractionary monetary policy should be advocated as it minimizes the inflation rate and thus better the budget deficit.

The Rise Of Hacktivism A Form Of Protest - 1815 Words

The Rise of Hacktivism: a Form of Protest In this day and age living in the era of the computer, it has become more mainstream and common to hear of cyber attacks, and crime being committed on the internet. Activism however, has become a prominent way to protest or argue a political view. Using related technologies and the internet have become a vital way for some to share their views. With the rise of the internet, â€Å"hacktivism† has become a prominent way for protest groups to express while also promoting a political agenda often related to free speech, human rights, and freedom of information. Hacktivism has been defined using many adjectives, however the definition of the word says it all: â€Å"the practice of gaining unauthorized access to a computer system and carrying out various disruptive actions as a means of achieving political or social goals†. (Dictionary.com) Hacktivism while being technology based, can come in many forms. Some of these forms can be mo re radical than others. To most, hacktivism may appear to be harmless to everyday life, but truly shows a great threat towards the security of others. With hacktivism comes a hacktivist. A hacktivist is someone who takes part in the sharing, creating, and execution of attacks on the internet. This may be someone working towards change by using a set of technical skills they may have. Most hacktivist tend to be critical thinkers whom already have jobs in the tech industry. Depending on who may be using the wordShow MoreRelatedFight For What You Deserve1651 Words   |  7 Pagesthat is full of hidden lies and corruption. According to Dorothy Denning, â€Å"Hacktivism emerged in the late 1980s at a time when hacking for fun and profit were becoming noticeable threats. Initially it took the form of computer viruses and worms that spread messages of protest.† As years pass by, hacktivism is advancing where â€Å"Denial of Service† or DOS attacks have been added. They are getting stronger with their rise in population and power in different groups and individuals. Although it is againstRead More Cultural Activism and Culture Jamming Essay5153 Words   |  21 Pagesorganize others to create their own cultural outlets. Cultural activisms focus is not on politics but culture, or perhaps it is interested in the politics of culture. This means that it is an activist culture that tries to look at the underlying forms of power which constricts culture and makes attempts at breaking through those controls. It also means putting the cultural at the service of political goals, this is where the terms activist art or political art, media piracy (radio, print,Read MoreMarketing and E-commerce Business65852 Words   |  264 Pagesrights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. This publication is protected by copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. To obtain permission(s) to use material from this work, please submit a written request to Pearson Education, Inc., Permissions Department, One Lake Street, Upper Saddle

Gender differences, reflected in play

Sample details Pages: 25 Words: 7623 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Statistics Essay Tags: Gender Essay Did you like this example? Children in the primary years of school learn much both in and out of the classroom. This is the time they begin reading, writing, and basic mathematics. During these crucial years they are also learning who they are and how they relate to the world around them. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Gender differences, reflected in play | Education Dissertation" essay for you Create order One important aspect of this development of self-concept is the idea of gender. Children bring to their primary years an understanding developed through home, community, and previous educational experiences of their own genders and those of others. However, gender concepts are often encouraged and reinforced significantly during the primary years, both in the classroom and through structured and unstructured play. It is important to begin with an examination of what gender really is. Most research into genderhas been undertaken by those representing feminist, homosexual, orother non-traditional gender constructs, and possibly for this reasonhas received less attention in traditional media or education forums.This leads to a misunderstanding of gender, its implications on theindividuals development, and its influence on the education and playof children. However, the conscious or unconscious attitudes towardsgender that surround children have great impact both on their conceptsof gender definition and their own understanding of their freedom todevelop a self-image within gender boundaries. Gender and chromosomal sex are often confused in the minds of manypeople. A person is born with either male or female genitalia, which determines both their sex and gender. This is a misunderstanding of both gender and its development within the individual. Most people are born from a physical standpoint as either female or male, although somerare individuals are born with part or all of both physical attributes,and a rarer group with neither (). However, physical equipment is not the determinant of gender, society is. Most societies have historically held that physical maleness or femaleness determines gender, which then leads to the development of certain sexual desires,attributes and actions (Butler 1990). Physical differences werebelieved to create two distinct genders, male and female. Being a man,that is, having masculine desires and performing masculine actions, isdistinct and wholly separate from being a woman, with feminine desiresand performances. Masculine and feminine tra its were believed to notbe a matter of choice, which caused all individuals to be classified as either male or female (Hawkesworth 1997). Importantly, this leads mostsocieties to value a heteronormality, and try to conform to themale/female binary or somehow bring under control anyone with desiresor actions outside of the these gender distinctions. (Gamson and Moon2004). People who behave outside of the traditional genders have been found tobe stigmatised by society and considered deviant (Epstein 1997). This is particularly difficult for young children who do not fit gendernorms. Little girls who excel at traditionally male activity, such as sport, or who have a boyish appearance are often the targets of slursand bullying; even more often such are directed at effeminate boys oryoung men participating in traditionally feminine pursuits (). Whilst there has been a relaxation of gender absolutes in recent years,children (and adults) still face a strong pressure from society toconform to the communitys ideas of male and female. Society tries tofix individuals outside what it considers to be normative behaviour, often with the best intentions, by pressuring those in a minority gender role to conform to stereotypical patterns of behaviour (Epstein1997). Those who remain the male / female binary, refusing to conform,are either excluded or demonised, and th e border between the normaland the perverse is carefully patrolled (Bem 1995, 331). People, especially children, are therefore forced to choose onegender role or the other, or be socially outcast. If androgyny exists,the community will typically assign gender to the individual based onappearance (Lucal 1999). Gender traits are called attributes for areason: People attribute traits to others. No one possesses them.Traits are the process of evaluation (Weston 1996, 21). Young children often use a variety of external appearance symbols to decide the gender of another, and some believe, for example, that if a boygrows long hair and wears nail polish he will become a girl (). By theprimary years, however, basic gender definition is already substantially established, both as part of the self-concept of the individual child and in the minds of children as a group (Jordan1995). Children are progressing during this period, however, in thedevelopment of their own gender identity, whether or not it fits withprescribed norms. Children during the primary years are alsocontinuing in the negotiation of gender definitions, and aresubsequently open to an expansion of gender beyond the rigid boys actthis way and girls act this way stereotypes (Jordan 1995). Teacher sat the primary level have the opportunity to expand these ideas ofgender to allow a wider availability of self-expression, or confirmtraditional gender stereotypes, often with profound affect on theirstudents (Jordan 1995). This development of gender concept has extremely important ramifications both for the child and society. Gender not only determines many of the expectations for males and females, including behaviour, roles, and interests, it in some ways determines relative value (Murphy 2003). Gender roles prescribe the division of labor and responsibilities between males and females and accord different rightsto them creating inequality between the sexes in power, autonomy, andwell-being, typically to the disadvantage of females (Murphy 2003,205). Children are socialized, through home, community and school, into gender-defined attitudes and behaviour (Murphy 2003). As opposed to its historic one-or-the-other binary of male orfemale, gender has recently been recognised as a learned performance, aset of actions and self-beliefs developed by the individual in the context of his or her own feelings and the roles offered by society (Hawkesworth 1997). This opens the possibility for gender roles beyondthe binary male/female concept. Consequently, whilst sex isbiological, gender must be viewed as derived from cultural experience (Murphy 2003). As a cultural construct, gender involves the incorporation of various symbols, which may support, exaggerate, oreven distort the potential of the individual (Hawkesworth 1997). Gender is created over time by the repetition of these symbols, withhow the acts are interpreted from society to society allowing for adiversity of norms in gender actions (Butler 1990). For example, for two grown men to hold hands as they walk down the street would beconsidered a homosexual symbol in the UK, but is common practise and holds no such connotation in parts of Africa. Each society has adistinct set of symbols for gender orientation, although there are many commonalities from community to community (Runker and Duggan 1991).Within a given society, boys learn what it is to act like a man, and by repeating these actions over time establish their masculinity andthemselves as males. Girls learn to act like women, that is, todress and behave in whatever society has defined as a feminine manner. This leads to a definition of gender as a performance, something eachindividual acts out, rather than a biologically based construct (Butler1990). This view provides a number of gender possibilities outsidethe traditional male/female, and also challenges what is male orfemale behaviour. For example, who determined that girls should playwith dolls but not trucks, and boys with trucks but not dolls? Bem(1995) refutes such absolutes, holding that masculine is not the opposite of feminine, but that an individual can be both masculine and feminine at the same time, or even strongly one or the other at different times. There is a co-dependence between femininities andmasculinities which means that neither can be fully understood inisolation from the other (Reay 2001, 153-154). Epstein (1996) describes Kinseys research into gender as determininggenders to fall over a continuum rather than in two distinct groups.This continuum spans male, female, homosexual, heterosexual, andeverything in between. Rather than being either male or female,with distinctly matching interests and sexual desires, an individual is somewhere in this fluid range of gender (Epstein 1996). Each person performs repetitive actions and builds gender-based concepts, whichdetermine his or her place on the continuum of gender identity. This further determines whether he or she feels like a man or feels likea woman, or perhaps identifies with some other self-produced category(Bem 1995). Research has indicated that children have a strong desire to mimicor be like those they consider similar to themselves. (Pidgeon, 1994;Thorne, 1993). For example, Boys create and preserve their masculinity through fear and rejection of whatever might be construedas female (Jordan 1995, 75). The understanding of themselves asdifferent from girls, the participating in activities that make themfeel like boys, the avoidance of pursuits or behaviours others might associate with girls, and most importantly copying what they perceiveto be masculine behaviours help boys determine and reinforce their feelings and understanding of being male in the traditionalmale/female gender binary. This is not limited to boys. Most children are highly motivated tolearn and practice whatever actions or concepts they deem necessary toachieve what they personally consider to be gender-appropriatebehaviour. This gender-appropriate behaviour is usually developed athome from a very early age, and reinforced through school and community experiences (Thorne 1993). Unless those in positions of authority or influence specifically address issues such as social justice and genderbias, most children will come to believe that the two distinct genders, male and female, and their associated contemporary gender boundariesare both natural and correct. The definition of genders within society is often hegemonic. To beable to recognise constricting or reinforcing behaviours within thearea of gender, then, it is important to first examine how the society in question defines masculinity or femininity. There tends to be moreresearch on hegemonic masculinity than femininity, presumably becauseof its impact on world systems of governance, economics, and power (Cohn and Weber 1999). The patriarchal society that still dominatesworld society rests on such masculine definition (Cohn and Enloe2003). Whilst women are increasingly included and allowed positions ofinfluence in such systems, most would concur the systems still operateby and for men, as they were designed. Women who participate must do so within a male construct and paradigm, which is sometimes at odds to their own preferences for dealing with a situation (Cohn and Enloe2003). Connell (1995) first developed the term hegemonic masculinity todescribe the definition of masculinity preferred by society. He arguedthat at any particular moment in history, there are number of different masculinities presented in a given society. However, society valuesone or a few masculinities over the others, setting this definition upas the ideal to which men (and boys) should aspire. This ideal isconstructed in relation to both these other masculinities and to femininity in the society. Setting up one type of masculinity as idealallows the society to justify the dominance of this gender norm withinit, justifying the domination of men who fit this definition over womenand men outside it (Cohn and Weber 1999). Hegemonic masculinitypreserves male power through the denigration of women and men outsideits boundaries (Ashley 2003, 258). It has led to a narrowing ofcultural opportunities for boys through the perceived need to conformto narrow macho stereotypes which requires boys to exclude themselvesfrom any activity popular with girls (Ashley 2003, 258). Many writers typify the military as the pinnacle of hegemonicmasculinity, and use it in describing male gender definitions inWestern countries. Cohn and Weber (1999) describe the military aspromising to mould boys into a real man, the hegemonically masculineman, which is, of course, seen as something good (462). Typicalcharacteristics of the successful soldier include physical andemotional courage, loyalty, ability to endure hardship, fearlessness,compartmentalisation of ones emotions, and tolerance for andwillingness to take risks. And male bonding you cant be a manuntil youve bonded with other men (Cohn and Weber 1999, 461). Cohnand Weber (1999) argue, however, that instead of producing all ofthese culturally admired qualities we associate with hegemonicmasculinity, such gender boundaries, compartmentalisation of emotion,and reduction of anything feminine creates some of the cripplingqualities of manhood (Cohn and Weber 1999, 463). Men are forced toconform to such limiting boundar ies, such as real men dont cry, andare restricted in the socially acceptable means by which they canpractise self-expression. Men are categorised as dominant, aggressiveand warlike, women as passive, compassionate and peaceful, and anythingoutside these definitions is not considered appropriate or positivelyreinforced (Tickner 1999). This link between reinforcement of masculinity in the military andin the classroom is often played out in power struggles and bullyingwithin a given class, or the school as a whole. In the early schoolyears most of the boys co-operative play revolves around suchfantasies, and boys who are not capable of positioning themselveswithin these narratives are excluded from peer play (Jordan 1995,78). There is further a strong reinforcement of the warriordiscourse, a discourse that depicts the male as the warrior, theknight errant, the superhero (Jordan 1995, 78). In this context, themasculinity of the hero or the boy in a position of power is derivedfrom and dependent on the behaviour of others, above whom he positionshimself, thus confirming his male dominance and masculinity (Jordan1995). This is often reinforced by girls, who will ignore their ownwants or needs to make sure dominant boys feel comfortable, and arelikely to simply agree with these boys or avoid them rather thanexplore issu es between the two or assert their own rights (Moylan 2003). Within the primary classroom, much of the power assumption and bullying documented is gender-based, aimed at girls, or more prominently, atboys outside traditional hegemony. Sexualised harassment is common,and clearly linked to the reproduction of hegemonic masculinity(Renold, 2000). Skelton (2001) has concluded from research that primary school boys engage in the reproduction of hegemonicmasculinity through a discourse of gay and girlie against peers who do not overtly engage in the hegemonic performance of football, fighting and girlfriends (19). However, given the opportunity, farmore boys than currently do would rebel against hegemonic masculinityand its cultural proscriptions Many boys are unhappy with the enforceddichotomy between public and private self (Walker, 2001, 132). Social class is also a component of what type of man a boy aspiresto be (Ashley 2003). Roughness, for example, is more prized amongstworking-class boys. In a study of a typical British primary class,Reay (2001) notes the class of nearly thirty was primarilyworking-class, with two middle-class boys. Although one of these boyswas not particularly interested in sport or likely to participate infights, he was still considered one of the most popular boys in theclass. Reay hypothesises the class adjusted its definition of therequirements of masculinity due to his social status, as a similarworking-class boy was not afforded such acceptance. She furtherconcludes this variance suggests that popular discourses may mask theextent to which white, middle-class male advantages in both the sphereof education and beyond continue to be sustained (Reay 2001, 157).There is an almost unspoken acceptance of white, middle-classmasculinity as the ideal that all those others girls as well asblack and whit e working-class boysare expected to measure themselvesagainst. (Reay 2001, 157). Overall, it is clear that encouragement and reinforcement of anarrow definition of appropriate masculinity is limiting for many boys,hampering both their growth and development of true self-identity. Ifschools are able to expand the perceptions of acceptable genderbehaviours, these boys will be allowed to express themselves freely andexplore who they are, the same freedom afforded boys who naturally fallwithin the hegemonic stereotype. Considerably less research has been undertaken on hegemonicfemininity, which should be noted in and of itself. Studies find agreater array of acceptable behaviour for girls, however, althoughbounded strongly by social class. For example, in a study of working-and middle-class primary school students, Reay (2001) found that whilstthere were some shared attributes, the desirable characteristics of onegroup differed significantly from that of the other. Quietness,propriety, and diligence in ones studies were all found to be valuedcharacteristics for the middle-class girls. In addition, Reays studyreaffirmed findings of feminist research which position being niceas specific to the formulation of white, middle-class femininity (Reay2001, 159). Working-class girls were more likely to be sexual in theirexpression, or present as tomboys. For the majority of theseworking-class girls, being a nice girl signified an absence of thetoughness and attitude that they were aspiring to (Reay 2001, 159 ). There was a considerable emphasis on appearance, all but the tomboygroup highly valuing feminine clothing and accessories, such as hairornaments or fingernail polish. In another study, girls stressed thedifficulty and constant negotiation involved in positioning themselvesas fashionable and desiring a fashion that at one moment rendered themattractive and at another labelled them a tart in the regulation oftheir bodies and their bodily expression (Renold 2000, 314).Interestingly, it was often other girls applying the pressure for suchtight-rope positioning, further indicating the importance of peerinfluence on gender negotiation, even at a young age (Renold 2000).Girls were critical of their physical appearance, with a very narrowphysical ideal presented to which they wished to conform. Typicaldaily rituals included checking and regulating arms, legs, hips andthighs, positioning their bodies and others as too fat or too thinand advocating the need to diet (Renold 2000, 310). The tomboy groupwas the only one in either study to construct gender identities throughdifferentiation from both feminine girls and boys. This group wasmost likely to pursue alternative dress and fashion. (Renold 2000, 316) In terms of relationships, girls are encouraged to be helpers of othersand supportive of both the teacher and boys in the class. Girls of allsocial classes are typically expected to be polite, kind, andcompassionate to others in the classroom. Women and girls arehegemonically expected to be collaborative, work together, and devisewin-win alternatives to problem-solving (Rabrenovic and Roskos 2001).Girls failing to perform within such gender determinants of appearanceand action are typically ostracised from social and play activities,and often become the butt of the bullying and teasing, described above,by which other girls and boys position themselves within the group(Runker and Duggan 1991). Prominent in both hegemonic masculinity and femininity is the emphasison heterosexuality as normative behaviour. This has an extreme effecton gender norming, even amongst pre-sexual children. Although their isa prevalent believe that heterosexual relations somehow symbolise entryinto adolescence, Epstein (1997) and others have documented howsix-year-olds date each other, and how even four- and five-year-oldspractise and reinforce heterosexuality in their interactions and play(Epstein, 1997). There is considerable external pressure to conform toheterosexual gender norms for all children. Boys are often tauntedhomophobically if their classroom or playground interactions with otherboys were questionably feminine, or if they themselves failed or chosenot to access hegemonic masculine discourses and practices (Renold2000, 322). Girls are reported to construct their femininity, or whatmight be better described as hyper-femininity, through a specific,culturally coded somatic ideal, viewing their bodies as only desirablewhen, through the validation of others, they are heterosexualised(Renold 2000, 311). Boundaries of heteronomativity are fiercelyenforced by peers, and also by authority figures such as parents andteachers (Frank et al 2003). Renold (2000) and Reay (2001) both indicate a high number ofheterosexual pairings, often refered to as boyfriend and girlfriend bythe children involved, amongst children in the primary years. Theserelationships further solidified the heterosexuality of the childreninvolved, and called into question the gender boundaries of those whodid not participate. For example, Connolly (1998) noted that someprimary-aged boys chose not to engage in heterosexualboyfriend-girlfriend relationships. Some stated they were not ready ortoo young, while others stated a desire to wait until they couldexperience a real relationship involving intimate sexual activity.In a similar finding, unless boys such as these successfully performedas tough-guys, footb allers or were sporting competent, theirheterosexuality would be called into question and they would often behomosexualised and denigrated as gay (Renold 2000, 320). Thisprovided two limited routes through which a boy in the primary yearscould establish his heterosexual hegemonic masculinity, either sport orgirlfriends (Connolly, 1998). Heterosexual boundaries are therefore shown to further support thedevelopment of hegemonic masculinity and femininity, as the two aretypically developed through rejection of the other. That is, a truemale rejects anything in or around him that is feminine, and separatesfrom such polluting attributes. The same is true in reverse,although less dramatically, for females (Cohn and Weber 1999). Thismakes it all the more important that the school environment encourage awide range of gender definitions, allowing students options later forlegitimate self-expression, rather than forced conformity. Gender behaviours and differences are learned from birth and have aprofound impact on identity and social roles (Pidgeon, 1994). Mostchildren learn these gender definitions through interaction with theirfamilies and to a lesser extent their community. Many are alsoinfluenced through previous educational environments such as infantschool. Children who spend full days in a childcare environment learnmuch about what it means in such a setting to be a boy or a girl.Children also learn gender roles at home and bring rules of gendersocialization into their childcare settings (Chick, Heilman-Houser andHunter 2002, 153). It is important to note, however, that childrensgender definitions are not fixed in the primary years. Rather genderroles are socially constructed throughout a persons life in ways bothongoing and active (Thorne, 1993). Another facet of note is thefinding by Pidgeon (1994) that children do not learn what is and is nota gender-appropriate behaviour by imitating the actions of others.While the actions of others and the positive or negative reinforcementthey provide has a profound and fundamental affect on genderdefinition, children also make choices related to gender negotiation,and demonstrate their own ideas of what it means to be a boy or agirl (Pidgeon, 1994, 24). Young children become aware of gender gradually in relation tothemselves, and later in relation to other people. Most have achievedsome type of gender identity by age three (Jacklin and Lacey 1997). Ina hegemonically traditional environment, they come to accept that allpersons will be either male or female, and that gender will generallybe constant by the age of five. Most learn that gender is stable, andremains fixed throughout a persons life (Jacklin and Lacey 1997).This makes it important to examine the gender constructs children arealready likely to have developed before entry to primary school.Studies have shown that strong hegemonic conceptions of gender arealready dominant in most childrens thinking by this time (Jacklin andLacey 1997). Infant schools, day-care facilities, and even home environments areoften heavily stereotyped to male and female conventions. Boys areconventionally dressed in clothes that allow for range of movement andactive play, while girls are often dress ed up in clothing thatpromotes quiet or less active play (Runker and Duggan 1991).Similarly, boys toys are typically bright, primary colours, andinclude things that require larger movement for play, such as cars,trucks, blocks, and balls. Girls toys are more likely to be pastel incolour, with pink being the most favoured colour for girls amongst toymanufacturers. Girls toys are typically replicants of itemsassociated with the traditional roles of women, such as miniaturekitchens, dishes, and houses. Dolls require smaller, less aggressivemovement in play, with typical doll-based activities including tendingthe doll, such as through dressing or bathing, and role-playing withthe doll, reinforcing relationship priorities amongst girls (Runker andDuggan 1991). Books were found to strongly favour males, although there is someevidence this pattern is decreasing. Chick, Heilman-Houser and Hunter(2002) found that when the caregivers in the young toddler room readto the children, the main characters in the books were usually male(52). Kortenhaus and Demarest (1993) also came to similar conclusionsin their study on the gender roles typically depicted in childrensliterature. While they found a greater equality in representation ofmale and female characters in recent years, the depictions of genderwere highly conforming to stereotypical gender roles. The vastmajority of books reviewed in the study represented male characters inpositions of leadership, problem-solving, and power. Girls were likelyto be represented as nurturers, helpless, and dependent (Kortenhaus andDemarest 1993). Evans (1998) similarly found that girls who did occupyleading roles in childrens stories typically still required theassistance of males to solve some type of dilemma (E vans 1998, 84).Evans cites a number of other studies that concluded males were moreoften the powerful and active characters. Females, on the other hand,were described or depicted as sweet, weak, frightened, and needy. Theseresearchers argued that childrens literature may do a disservice tochildren if it does not accurately represent men and women and thedifferent roles they portray in our Society (Evans 1998, 84). Children are also often treated differently according to hegemonicgender expectations. Thorne (1993) found that boys in infant schoolconsistently received more attention than girls, even though thisattention was often associated with inappropriate or disruptivebehaviour. Boys typically exhibit a much higher activity level thangirls, and while a small proportion of this difference is shown to bebiological, most has been documented to be from gender conditioning inthe environment (Thorne 1993; Chick, Heilman-Houser and Hunter 2002).Infant boys received positive reinforcement for assertiveness,rowdiness, and rough play, whilst girls were negatively reinforced forsuch behaviours. Accordingly, girls were positively reinforced forhelpful or caretaking behaviour, passivity, and cooperation in theinfant environment, whilst boys were often asked if something was wrongwhen they displayed such behaviour (Chick, Heilman-Houser and Hunter2002). Boys were expected to be more active and therefore r equire moreattention, which researchers noted to be provided by caregivers.Extra attention to boys was evident also in the infant room, wherethey were held and spoken to more frequently (Chick, Heilman-Houserand Hunter 2002, 150). Infant girls were more likely to occpythemselves quietly and not demand consideration, and accordinglyreceived less attention (Chick, Heilman-Houser and Hunter 2002). It can therefore be concluded that most children enter their primaryyears with a good amount of hegemonic gender reinforcement alreadyunder their belts. The process of the socialization and formation ofsex roles begins long before school instruction begins: from birth on,parents treat boys and girls differently; they make different demandson them; children are given different toys to play with; they acquiredifferent kinds of experience, and so on (Buzhigeeva 2004, 77). Bythe time they begin their primary years, boys and girls behavioursand self-concepts already include a number of gender-base dcharacteristics, from a wide variety of origins (Buzhigeeva 2004, 77). By the time they enter the primary school years, children usually havebecome aware of culturally accepted gender norms in their society andhave at least partially negotiated their gender self-construct (Jacklinand Lacey 1997). At this point children typically prefer playing withthose of their own gender, reinforcing gender hegemony to which theyhave been previously exposed. This segregation by gender is morelikely in situations where there is little or no interference byadults, indicating it is the childrens preference (Maccoby 1988). Aschildren spend further time within gender-segregated groupings,traditional gender constructs are further reinforced, and the more timea child spends in same-sex contexts, the more likely he or she is toexhibit a strong pattern of gender differentiated behaviour (Maccoby1988). It is not surprising, therefore, that the majority of childrenentering primary classes were reported by teachers to exhibittraditionally gendered behaviours. Those that did not were generallyrejected by teachers in some way, or encouraged to change to a moretraditional gendered behaviour (Reay 2001). For example, girls wereexpected to prefer collaborative work, working for a win-win outcome,and having a quiet, orderly working environment (Burgess 1990; Jackson2002). Teachers also expected girls entering primary school to bebetter adapted to learning activities, to more easily able tounderstand teachers directions and explanations, to organise their ownactivity very well, and to have in general a more positive attitudetowards school than boys (Buzhigeeva 2004, 81-82). Teachers not only expect such behaviours from girls in their classes,but punish girls who do not conform to these expectations. Connolly(1998) reports that girls who behave in an assertive or disruptivemanner are more likely to be viewed negatively than boys exhibiting thesame behaviour. Reay (2001) desribes two such girls who refused totake traditional submissive gender roles in class. They espoused aphilosophy of giving as good as they got and doing it forthemselves, and were not hesitant to confront challenges by boys, evenphysically. While similar behaviour from boys in the class wasdescribed as boys being boys, from these two girls its was viewedinappropriate and actually counterproductive to learning. Reay furtherreports this type of activity, which ran counter to traditional formsof femininity resulted in them being labelled at various times byteachers in the staffroom as real bitches, a bad influence andlittle cows (Reay 2001, 160-161). Frank et al (2003) found while refusal to participate was generallyaccepted in boys, it was frowned upon in girls and caused them to belabelled as uncooperative. The implicit acceptance of the position ofhealthy idleness in boys, which affirms that no healthy boys everwork at a subject they dislike. Healthy boys were and are seen asthose who do not necessarily take up the work of schooling, and,conversely, boys who engage in the process of working hard for goodgrades are by contrast, unhealthy (Frank et al 2003, 122). Boys weremore likely to be punished or negatively reinforced for traditionallyfemale behaviours by male teachers or principals, or by peers. In most classroom environments, students were positively reinforcedbased on hegemonic gender norms. Girls were reinforced for theirappearance, such as dress and hairstyle, or for helping or beingcooperative. Boys received more compliments related to their size,intelligence, or physical prowess (Derman-Sparks 1989; Chick,Heilman-Houser and Hunter 2002). When teachers talk with boys aboutappearance, interactions are usually brief and move quickly todiscussion of physical skills or academics (Chick, Heilman-Houser andHunter 2002, 152). Similarly, teachers are less likely to praise girlsfor academic achievements than neatness. Reay (2001) reports a girlreceiving a perfect mark on an assignment was praised by the teacherfor her handwriting, while a boy receiving a high but less-than-perfectscore was praised for his performance. This sends a gender specificmessage to young males and females that could contribute to biasedattitudes in children (Evans 1998, 83). It teaches girls toconcentrat e on externals in order to receive praise, and boys toconcentrate on learning and success. Teachers also structure classroom activity and their own behavioursbased on gender. For one thing, boys often receive more attention inclass. According to the United States 1992 American Association ofUniversity Women (AAUW) report, females in primary school receivedsignificantly less attention from teachers than did males. Teacherstypically interact more with male students, whether it is to verballyreprimand them, to answer their questions, to elaborate on theircomments, or to help them with schoolwork (Evans 1998, 83). Frenchand French (1984) and Swann and Graddol (1988) similarly found that notonly did teachers give more attention to boys than to girls, boys as agroup were provided greater access to certain kinds of learningexperiences. This included more open-ended and challenging questionsbeing directed towards boys, greater likelihood of boys to performexperiments or hands-on activities, while girls watched, and power inclassroom discussions and decisions more frequently given to boys bytheir teachers contributed to inequalities. (Jacklin and Lacey 1997). Boys were typically described by both male and female teachers of bothsexes as more intelligent, and better able to grasp difficultconcepts, when compared to girls (Gordon 1998, 55). Girls in the lateprimary years were seen as over-occupied with love affairs and romance,and morally weaker in their behaviours. Girl pupils are more oftenperceived, by both male and female teachers, as the initiators ofsexual activity with boys and male teachers than as the victims ofsexual harassment and abuse (Gordon 1998, 55). This is significant asteachers award visibility, to some degree, based on their perceptionsof students. Highly `visible children, those who achieve high levelsof attention from teachers and visible interaction with peers, are morelikely to be boys; reciprocally, `invisible children, who receive lessattention and visible interaction with peers, are more likely to begirls. (Jacklin and Lacey 1997). There is also a tendency to use girls as an instrument of classroomcontrol, regardless of its impact on their learning orself-constructs. The idea that girls enhance boys learning by exertinga civilising influence has been present in the educational communityfor decades (Jackson 2002). Parker and Rennie (2002) report severalteachers they surveyed stated they were likely to use girls presenceand influence in their classrooms to manage boys behaviour, regardlessof the effect of the practise on the girls being so used. Creese et al(2004) similarly noted teachers regularly used girls to straighten upthe classroom, including messes made by boy students, who were notrequired to clean up after themselves. Girls were strongly positionedas helpers by both the teacher and the boys in the class, and werepositively reinforced for participating in this positioning andnegatively reinforced for refusing it. Jackson and Smith (2000)similarly found girls often assume a care-taking role with boys, and are encouraged to do so (Jackson and Smith 2000). Further, many teachers assigned homework with the understanding thatprimarily the girls would be the students completing it, and often didnot punish boys for not completing this assigned work. Teachers alsoreported they still often designed homework assignments with boys inmind, even if they expected more of the female students to complete thetasks (Parker and Rennie 2002). Within classroom assignments, teachersreport avoiding deficiencies in boys written work and poorcommunication skills by allowing the class to rely on the girlssuperior abilities in these areas. In general, they are less likely toprovide girls with opportunities to take risks in their work orinteraction, or to address open-ended questions presented to the classapart from the boys leadership (Parker and Rennie 2002). Boys also face censure from teachers when behaving outside traditionalgender constructs. Boys who flaunt the above stereotypes andstudiously apply themselves to their school work are often teased orbullied by their peers, and if they are also effeminate in appearanceor manner were documented to be harassed or put down by teachers,particularly male teachers, as well (Mac an Ghaill, 1994). Similarly,boys who enjoyed helping activities in the primary classroom were oftenridiculed as sissies or pets. Those boys who did not excel inPhysical Education classes were reported to be derided and slanderedhomophobically by both their peers and their instructors. In short,they were rejected and punished for not being the right kind of boy(Frank et al 2003, 122). Interestingly it was the high status boys ina given context, rather than teachers, that typically initiated suchresponse to boys outside traditional hegemonic masculinity. Teacherswere then sometimes likely to participate or reinforce thi s behaviour(Ashley 2003). The all-girls school allows for consideration of gender norming in theeducational environment without the opposite gender to contrastagainst. Whilst most of the research on gender hegemony involvesmales, advocates for single-sex educational constructs usually do so onbehalf of girls. Warrington and Younger (2001) cite a variety ofresearch, all of which concludes, single-sex classes give teachers theopportunity to challenge girls traditional stereotypes and thegendered perceptions of certain subjects, and enable teachers to buildup girls confidence and self-esteem in non-traditional subjects(341). A wider variety of gender performances were found to betolerated or encouraged in the all-girls environment. For example,Burgess (1990) reports girls are more likely to pursue activeleadership roles in same-sex schools, positions traditionally sought byboys. Once the action of leading becomes an accepted part of thesegirls gender identity, they have been found to be more likely tocontinue to pursue leadership opportunities, even if they return to amixed-sex educational setting (Warrington and Younger 2001). In addition, girls in single-sex schools have been found to be morelikely to study subjects outside traditional female boundaries, suchas the hard sciences and mathematics, and are further more likely tosucceed in these subjects (Stables 1990). Girls who participate inall-girls mathematics classes have a greater likelihood of choosing togo on to even more challenging math courses (Parker and Rennie 2002).In a co-educational school offering single-sex courses, girls enrollingin the all-girls GCSE physics class were over three times more likelyto continue with A-level physics than those in the mixed GCSE class(Parker and Rennie 2002). In a same-sex learning environment, girlsare not confronted with tension between succeeding in traditionallymale subjects and maintaining their femininity. Interestingly thereis not a reciprocal effect on boys in same-sex classes, with ifanything an increased pressure on conformity to hegemonic masculineperformances documented. Even the decisions for same-sex programmes are heavily influenced bywhat is perceived to be in the best interests of boys. In one recentstudy, over half the LEAs implementing single-sex instruction of somekind did so in response to underachievement by boys, not the needs ofgirls (Warrington and Younger 2003). Another thirty percent of theschools in the same study undertook the system change to address boysinadequacies in English and modern foreign languages, with less thantwenty percent of schools moving to single-sex instruction to meet theneeds of girls or encourage their academic achievement (Warrington andYounger 2003). Girls and their parents are also often hestitant toadvocated for their educational needs. For example, a number ofschools which initially moved to same-sex instruction to right boysbehavioural problems are planning to return to co-educationalinstruction, even though same-sex instruction has proved to be stronglybeneficial for girls. Girls themselves are accustomed to their rolesas supporters of the boys, and whilst many girls regard boys asnuisances or pests, many girls do seem concerned that boys should notsuffer as a result of initiatives introduced by the school, even if thegirls feel that they themselves benefit from such initiatives (Jackson2002, 43-44). Jackson (2002), reviewing and building on research done by Askew andRoss, found that when girls were not present in the classroomenvironment, weaker boys take the place of girls and provide abutt for proving masculinity, suffering at the hands of thepositioning of more hegemonic males (44). Notably, this is a reasonprovided by many to avoid single-sex educational systems such as theall-girls school. School administrators are reported in a number ofLEAs to be considering returning girls to mixed-sex classes to protectsuch non-hegemonically masculine boys from harm (Jackson 2002).Presumably, the girls will protect such boys by reclaiming their placeas the butts against which masculine positioning and bullying arelevelled. One school, which had introduced single-sex classes mainlybecause of behavioural problems among boys, was contemplatingabandoning it precisely for the same reason: a survey amongst staff inthis school found that an overwhelming eighty-six percent of staff feltboys beh aviour to be a problem in single-sex groups (Warrington andYounger 2003, 347). It is not surprising that hegemonic gender roles encouraged andreinforced in the classroom are then practised by children during playactivities. They have probably been playing within the confines oftraditional gender norms for most of their lives. Thorne (1993)contends play has a major role in how young children construct gender;Pidgeon (1994) agrees, holding that as children develop their genderidentities, they naturally begin to select gender-typed toys andactivities. It is through imaginative play that children begin toexplore and understand gender roles long before their schooling begins(Chick, Heilman-Houser and Hunter 2002, 149). Parents interactionswith female children tend to be more protective than with malechildren, hindering female childrens ability to engage in independentproblem-solving and their willingness to take risks. Boys remain moredistant from their parents; they have to deal with a broader range ofphenomena in life, which stimulates them to greater cognitive ac tivity(Buzhigeeva 2004, 77). In addition, children are more likely to bepraised by parents or other authority figures for stereotypicallygendered play, such as girls with dolls and boys with trucks. As discussed above, many children also have experience highlystereotyped play environments at home, in their communities, and inprevious educational situations even before they arrive at primaryschool (Runker and Duggan 1991). Selection of toys and playactivities, for example, which is initially done by parents or otherauthority figures, influences gender development. From an early age,different types of toys are routinely provided to girls and boys forplay, and over time they respond to these toy selections by choosinggender-based toys and play activities (Pidgeon, 1994). At the primarylevel, toys and games for boys are more oriented to encouraging thedevelopment of independence, an exploratory approach to theaccomplishment of tasks, and a better understanding of spatialrelations whilst girls toys and games encourage discipline andfollowing rules, a submissive approach to tasks, and an emphasis onrelationship skills (Buzhigeeva 2004, 77). Children are further aware which types of toys are intended for them,and most comply with such leading during play times (Runker and Duggan1991). Chick, Heilman-Houser and Hunter (2002) observed that childrenduring play periods at school consistently exhibited gender separationin their choice of toys, activities and playmates (152). Girlspreferred dolls, play telephones, purses, shopping carts, and colouringpages, whilst boys were attracted to trucks, blocks, squirt buts, andpuzzles. In one all-girls class, toys included rocking chairs, washerand dryer sets, kitchen sets, dress-up clothes, a shopping cart, babydolls, and a twirl around play set. There were no blocks, buildingsets, tool sets, trucks, or cars (Chick, Heilman-Houser and Hunter2002, 152). Girls played more often with each other and in role-playscenarios, such as playing house. Boys were more apt to choosephysical activities such as bowling (Chick, Heilman-Houser and Hunter2002, 152). As boys are encouraged to be assertive and outgoing in the classroom,such behaviours are also highly prized by peers in play. This isencouraged in many play areas by providing boys more active playequipment and a greater proportion of play space (Thorne 1993). This,coupled with gender reinforcement in the classroom and at home,encourages boys to engage in active, aggressive play, and marginalisesany boys who resist such play or choose other play activities. Sport,particularly very physical sport, is a strongly desirable activity forestablishing hegemonic masculinity amongst young boys. Participationin sports is considered essential for males, with rugby beingconsidered the most `masculine and `virile of all the sports (Gordon1998, 54). Close male friendships, and important part of boys gendernegotiations, are often forged through sport activities such asfootball. These activities allow aspects of male bonding that mightbe disrupted by a feminine influence causing the no girls allowed clause so typical of young boys play (Ashley 2003, 266). When boyschoose to play quietly outdoors, researchers found the boys were oftenasked by teachers why they were doing so, with questions such as areyou feeling all right? and Dont you want to play with the others?being common (Evans 1998). Boys also use play and prowess at play activities in negotiation ofsocial dominance. Those who are able to organise or lead their team,typically the most popularly positioned boys, and those who exhibitparticular athletic skill are promoted within the group (Runker andDuggan 1991). This reinforces both male bonding (being part of theteam) and male-specific activities as part of the boys genderdefinitions. When playing with girls, boys similarly use power andcontrol strategies that support both their dominance as males and aseparation of genders. This often causes girls to withdraw from playactivities, leaving the boys in their gender reinforcing, all-malegroup (Walkerdine, 1998). Ashley (2003) has also clearlydemonstrated boys preference for the mesomorphic (athletic) physiqueamongst their peers when awarding social position or friendship(Ashley 2003, 266). Girls, responding to reinforcement of the traditional gender emphasison relationships, tend to favour relation-based play. Girls were morefrequently observed to experiment with adult roles, many of which weregender typed, such as playing house, talking on the phone, andshopping (Chick, Heilman-Houser and Hunter 2002, 152). Whenrelationships are uncomfortable, such as when boys are involved and tryto dominate play or when two members of the play group areuncreconcilable, many girls will simply avoid play, and are oftencommended for doing so (Walkerdine, 1998). Just as girls are moretypically inactive participants in all aspects of school life, so theyare often passive in play activities (Thorne 1993). Evans (1998)contends that the repeated gender messages sent to girls through theirenvironment effectively silences them both in an out of the classroom. Girls play is predominantly domestic, through which they focus on thedevelopment and maintenance of a few close relationships with othergirls. The best friend and small group of close, intimate peers ishighly important to both girls play and gender negotiations (Runkerand Duggan 1991). Girls typically participate with this group inrole-play and other play activities modelled on real life. Throughthis play they reinforce both their current roles as girls andanticipated future roles as women, practising also skills in buildingand maintaining support networks (Runker and Duggan 1991). When girlschoose active, rowdy play activities, they often receive negativefeedback from teachers. For example, one girl was asked if she hadbeen drinking coffee by a classroom instructor because she was behavingactively, although boys exhibiting similar behaviour received no suchcomments. When a group of boys and girls was later playing on thesliding board and crawling over its sides, the girls were cauti oned tostop crawling or they would hurt their bellies, although no commentswere made to the boys (Chick, Heilman-Houser and Hunter 2002, 151). Both male and female children are typically exposed to and heavilyreinforced in hegemonic gender roles from a very early age. Whilstthis can help them in making gender distinctions, it also limits themto two gender possibilities within the traditional male / femalebinary. This prevents many children from both gender performances andexploring activities of preference to them. Many researchers havedocumented that whilst the education system is more attentive to boyswants and needs, it also more strongly encourages conformity of boys toa hegemonic masculine stereotype, and marginalises boys who do not fitthis narrow definition of maleness (Jordan 1995). Girls have a widerrange of options in gender negotiation, with sampling traditionallymale activities from a tomboy gender definition being somewhatsocially acceptable in many situations. The pressure to conform tohegemonic heterosexual femininity, however, increases strongly as girlsnear the end of the primary school period (Reay 2001). As it is unlikely to happen in the home ore community, it is importantfor the healthy development of all children that the educationalenvironment provide a safe place for gender exploration andnegotiation, allowing the individual child the freedom toself-determine his or her gender identity. This will only beaccomplished through deliberate increased awareness of teachers toencourage and reinforce a gender continuum, both in the classroom andin play activities. As children both learn from play and play what they learn, emphasis on a variety of gender definitions in play empowers both our children and society to develop to their full potential.

Soft Drugs Free Essays

Soft drugs should not be legal Drugs have been a problem for the society for a long time and it is still a going subject. Different kinds of organisations work hard to try keeping people from using drugs, however a new problem has occurred. During the last years there have been discussions in some European countries to legalise so called soft drugs. We will write a custom essay sample on Soft Drugs or any similar topic only for you Order Now Soft drugs usually means cannabis, which is the name for drugs made from the plant called â€Å"Cannabis Sativa†. Several countries have a very liberal attitude to these light drugs and think that it would be better if they were legal. I think it is wrong to legalise any kind of drug and that nothing good can come out of it. We all know that drugs are bad for us, so why would we want to expose ourselves to them? Why? There are already serious problems with legal drugs, like alcohol and tobacco. There is a reason why drugs are banned. It is because they are dangerous to our health. These laws are there to protect us and they are for our own good. It is known, and proved, that drugs can do damage to our physical and mental health. For example it can weaken the immune system, lung capacity and memory. It can cause depression and changes of personality. And these are just a few examples. Drugs are also very addictive and to stop the abuse is very hard, because the withdrawal symptoms are very strong and painful. There is also the risk of taking an overdose which can lead to serious harm or even death. Another argument against legalising cannabis is that it will get more accepted if it is legal, which will lead to the fact that more people will use it. If more people use drugs it will increase the number of people who get addicted. It is also proved that people who abuse cannabis often try heavier drugs later, when the effect from cannabis gets weaker. Legalising soft drugs would be awfully expensive for society. If more people use drugs, then the need for medical care and detoxification clinics will increase. Both are very expensive, but they will be necessary because addicts need treatment. The costs related to crime will also increase, because many drug addicts start committing crimes to be able to afford the drugs they need. Those who abuse drugs tend to stop caring about anything else but the drugs. That could result in that they neglect their jobs and other responsibilities. The number of accidents caused by being under the influence of drugs will very likely increase, because there will be more substances that affect a person’s concentration and abilities. Alcohol will no longer be the only dangerous substance which is associated to accidents in traffic or risky jobs. This will be one more cost related to drugs, and someone will have to pay for it. Some say that alcohol is just as dangerous as cannabis, but alcohol is legal. So why not legalise cannabis? True, but why would we want to introduce another harmful substance, when we have enough troubles with the first one? There are other ways to have fun than smoking pot. Others claim that just because someone smokes a joint every now and then it does not mean that he or she will get addicted. That is right, but the higher the number of people that use drugs sometimes, the higher the number of people that get addicted. Drugs are not good for people or for society. As I have established, no good can come from legalising soft drugs. It would be a great danger to our health, it would bring more and larger costs for society and it would increase the number of people who get addicted. Why would we want that? Soft drugs should be legal There are two ways to try and sort out the drugs problem. One is to legalise and regulate the supply, and the other is to leave it in the hands of criminals. For years we have tried the second option. Banning all forms of soft drugs or lightly regulating them, not allowing them as such but not banning to the extent where people know it is seriously wrong. This is the situation we have found with drugs such as nicotine and tobacco and alcohol. Another major problem we face is the use of soft drugs especially by the younger generations. A survey revealed that 1 in 12 twelve year olds have tried drugs moving up to 1 in 3 fourteen year olds and 2 in 5 sixteen year olds. This means that about 40% and rising of our secondary school pupils have broken the law. In years to come at this rate the percentage will move up and then those 16 year olds will become adults and this problem will therefore become ever more significant as they become more influential. We saw a very parallel instance of this dilemma during 1920s America. Drink related crimes had become so numerous that the only way out that the American government saw was to ban it outright. This is what wed have tried in Britain and it has almost exactly the same consequences. Gun crime has soared like it did in America in the 20s. We see far too many shootings related to ‘turf wars’ or punishment crimes such as when an employee of a drug dealer makes a mistake. At some point we have to look at the problem and realise that all crimes, in the major scheme of things are somewhat drugs related. Whether it is a burglar stealing someone’s possessions to fund their drug habit, or the death of a drug abuser, unable to keep up with the payments to his dealer. We have to realise that getting rid drug dealers is the only way to go. Often they are the centre of the crime in their area. They are loan sharks to the poorer people and the people who organise the protection rackets for the business owners. No matter where you go you will always find them to do with it. The fact is that people do like to take drugs. The thing about alcohol is, your liver is designed to cope with it and so as long as you drink in moderation then your body is able to recover perfectly fine. With drugs, this is a lot less likely to happen. That being said, I’m all for legalising the softer drugs for several reasons – the main one being that it will remove a lot of the appeal of â€Å"rebelling† and so you’re less likely to want to do it because it’s â€Å"forbidden† (it’s the same with drinking, as soon as you can legally drink you no longer have such a strong desire to do so) Also, places like the netherlands have legalised the soft drugs because it just means that they can spend more time cracking down on the harder ones and from what I’ve heard from some people that live there, the majority of people that use it are actually tourists that go there especially for that (so it would also mean an increase in tourism and stimulate the economy) Legalising it would also make it a lot safer because you never know what’s actually in the drug you are buying, I recently watched this very ducational program on the effects drugs have and out of a random sample of pills only half actually contained the drug they were meant to. Legalising means that it will be regulated and also means that it is likely to be a lot less expensive and so you also won’t have the problem of people having to resort to illegal activities in order to get money for it. Quite a few drugs have also been shown to have medicinal benefits and so even partially legalising them for medicinal purposes only (for which you would need a prescription) would be beneficial. The bottom line though is that people are going to do them whether they are legal or not so if you at least legalise the softer ones, it allows you to regulate and control them a lot more than before and also if you make drugs legal then it will also help reduce all the gangs revolving around supplying drugs because they will no longer be needed and will no longer make money and so that’s also a positive benefit. I feel I should also point out here that I’m not a fan of drugs, not even the â€Å"legal-highs† as I don’t like the idea of altering my mind and not being in full control of my body. How to cite Soft Drugs, Papers

Effects of Radical Reconstruction free essay sample

To put this generally, the reconstruction policy that was set was to oppose Lincoln, oppose Johnson, take control of Congress, impeach Johnson and put full support towards Grant. The goals of Radical reconstruction seemed feasible at the time. Reconstruction was important for reunifying the country and establishing the first constitutional steps towards equality (Bowels, 2011 In addition to the general previously mentioned goals were that in regards to amendments and other laws.The passing of the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth Amendment all were necessary in the transformation process. Just like any transformation, nothing happens overnight. The implementation of the amendments and laws to attempt equality were the right thing to do. Government action was the necessary catalyst for change. In 1862, Lincoln appointed provisional military governors to re-establish governments in the south states recaptured by the Union Army. This brought about The Ten Percent Plan. The process of reconstructing the Union began in 1 863, two years before the Confederacy formally surrendered. After major Union victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, Abraham Lincoln issued the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction in which he outlined his Ten-percent Plan. The plan stipulated that each secessionist state had to redraft its constitution and could reenter the Union only after 10 percent of its eligible voters pledged an oath of allegiance to the United States. The radical republicans began to oppose Lincoln during reconstruction because they believed he was too lenient and did not support the same goals of the radicals. The Radicals opposed Lincoln because they wished for a more aggressive approach to the prosecution of the war. They opposed slavery to the fullest and wanted slavery to end quicker than planned as well as total elimination of the confederacy. After Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, Vice President Andrew Johnson stepped into office as President.To many, he appeared as though he was Radical until he broke with them, which turned into a struggle between the two parties. Johnson lost in the 1 866 elections in the north and Radicals then had control over congress to override Johnnys vetoes. Next came the control Of congress by the radicals. By this point, the radicals had full control over congress. Johnson had vetoed 21 bills and was left with only 6 of them that the radicals did not override. The intentions of the Radicals was to Impeach Johnson but the effort was not going anywhere at first.By surprise, Johnson violated the Tenure Office act by dismissing Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton and the House of Representatives voted for the impeachment of Johnson. The Tenure Office act forbade the President to remove any federal officeholder appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate without the further approval of the Senate. Although he escaped his removal of office by senate in 1868, he still had lost most of his power. From 1865-1868 General Ulysses S. Grant had charge over the Army under resident Johnson and enforced the radical agenda. In 1868, Grant was elected as a republican after siding with the radicals on reconstruction policy and signed the civil rights act of 1871. The Radicals mainly supported the passing of three amendments. The Thirteenth amendment being Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their Along with the term that the Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation(Blacklist).The fourteenth amendment had many terms to it but was summed up as allowing for the citizenship of the freed slaves. The fifteenth Amendment prevented race from determining the right to vote and stated as follows: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this articl e by appropriate legislation (Blacklist).Despite the rights legislation by Radical Republicans in Congress, whites in he south did everything they could to limit the rights of their former slaves. During presidential reconstruction (Presidential Reconstruction under Johnson readmitted the southern states using Lincoln Ten-percent Plan and granted all southerners full pardons, including thousands of wealthy planters and former Confederate officials) white supremacist congressman passed a series of black codes.These codes denied blacks the right to make contracts, testify against whites, marry white women, be unemployed and even loiter in public areas. In 1868, the radicals were thrilled that Johnson finally left the white house ND Grant was elected as President. The downside to Grant be elected was his inexperience in office. This was a big risk to take and ultimately resulted in the end of radical reconstruction. Grant had a hard time saying no and took on more than he could handle. His cabinet posts and appointments were filled by incompetent officials who were no more than spoils-seekers. As a result, Grants reputation then began to go downhill after repetitious scandals occurred. Reconstruction was a time of experiment in democracy but of course was short lived and then followed by a long period when the rights protected by institutional amendments were conspicuously offensive and violated in the south and much of the nation. When women tried to employ the Fourteenth amendment to press their right to vote, they found the courts to be not receptive to suggestions or ideas.After the end of reconstruction, the nation saw what was a failure of reconstruction and was attributed to black incapacity, strongly reinforcing the racialist thinking that they reemerged to dominate American culture in the late nineteenth century. The radicals put on a tough struggle to bring about a protection of African American rights. At the time, all of the goals between amendments, new laws, opposition of political leaders, political advancement seemed feasible and were not completely out of the question. The tough part was the transformation that was not supported by everybody. The main ingredient to changes in American citizenship is government action. Hugh Grant could have been the big catalyst to change ideas of citizenship and support the ideas of the radicals but he lacked experience. He was a big risk coming into office to bring about the change this country needed, but he was not capable of doing so. Radical reconstruction was important for reunifying his country and establishing constitutional steps towards equality but was not something that could be taken on over night, nor could it be in the hands of an inexperienced political leader.