By Marie Banuelos
Coming out of retirement to become a superintendent for a second time has given me pause to make some serious decisions on what I would no longer permit as acceptable behaviors of gender bias in my district, in the community, and from the staff and board members.
Having been a secondary teacher and administrator in primarily male-dominated areas of education for 35 years has made me very familiar with gender bias. As a teacher it was called sexual harassment; as an administrator it was not called anything because women understood the need to keep silent about the topic in order to keep their jobs.
In my career in large districts and small, in urban and rural districts, I have experienced gender bias and sexual harassment as a regular part of my job, especially as an administrator. And I am not proud that I mostly kept silent about my experiences, at least publicly.
When I decided to research experiences of gender bias of women superintendents in California, I wasn’t sure what I would find. I admit I had to make sure my own experiences and “topic bias” were kept in check, because I thought I was the exception and not the rule in experiencing gender bias.
Follow-up of prior research yields surprises
My search for current research on gender bias in education found several resources that specifically addressed the topic. Catherine Herr Van Nostrand (1993) identified specific behaviors in each area that tended to be exhibited by men to exert male dominance in the workplace. These behaviors included lack of eye contact, touching, references to gender, degrading remarks, space encroachment, gender categorization, paternalism, disparaging remarks, interrupted speech and condescension.
Linda Skrla, Pedro Reyes and James Joseph Scheurich (2000) published an article, “Sexism, Silence, and Solutions: Women Superintendents Speak Up and Speak Out,” which responded to the misconception that researchers know what affects sexism: “All of these theories, in our view, offered incomplete explanations for the continued under-representation of women in the public school superintendency.” The questions for my survey and the follow-up interviews seeking more in-depth and contextualized responses were based on the findings of prior research such as these studies.
I selected 35 women superintendents at random from those willing to participate in the study in California. They responded to a scaled-response survey regarding their possible experiences of gender bias on the job. I did follow-up interviews with each woman. It was the interviews that enlightened the topic of gender bias as it affected women’s jobs and personal lives. The information gathered from the interviews also brought into question the validity of past scaled-response survey research on the topic. Even I was surprised at what I found.
Women superintendents reported they were aware of their gender from the time they got dressed for work in the morning. Women superintendents identified how they were negatively perceived as leaders because they were women, and described the stress that caused. The women said men were treated with deference and respect, whereas the women felt they were treated with disrespect and their authority questioned. They internalized those experiences by questioning their skills, abilities and competencies.
Women superintendents reported sometimes others’ conversations overtly pointed to gender differences; sometimes the conversations included comments that were in the form of inappropriate jokes or negative comments about the female gender. The women superintendents reported that the references to their gender were often a part of conversations of their colleagues, the board and the public.
Condescension from their colleagues seemed to have the most negative impact on them. They expressed more anger and hurt when condescension was from male superintendents in their own counties. The majority of women reported that they ignored the comments and kept their feelings to themselves.
The women said that their boards expected more of them because they were women. This awareness made women superintendents plan more carefully how to communicate and have their decisions accepted. They also perceived that they had to present more evidence and explain things more fully to their boards to get support than they believed men did. Twenty-five of the 35 women interviewed believed their gender had an effect on their evaluations.
Inappropriate touching
Thirty-two of the women interviewed identified experiences of inappropriate touching. They said inappropriate touching was frequent when they were principals and assistant principals. Women who reported inappropriate touching told of incidents with board members, parents and staff. Eleven women said they had experienced inappropriate touching as assistant superintendents. Nine women interviewed experienced inappropriate touching as superintendents. They felt that the position of superintendent brought a kind of authority that reduced those kinds of incidents.
Few women described being angry about inappropriate touching. What they did describe was being fearful, intimidated and inadequate to handle the situations. Some said they were concerned about how they would be perceived. One talked about what she needed to do to change her behavior so it didn’t happen again.
The sense of powerlessness to address inappropriate touching was evident when the women sought help from their superiors. They described being apprehensive about reporting the experiences, as they were fearful they would not be believed or that somehow the behaviors would be seen as their fault. There was a clear distrust of upper administration to handle their complaints. They feared damage to their careers if they addressed the inappropriate touching.
The emotional impact
The women superintendents admitted that they had experienced emotional impacts in their personal lives from gender bias. They expressed frustration, anger, depression and diminished self-esteem. Internalized experiences resulted in negative impacts on healthy living — lack of sleep, bad eating habits, stress and depression.
When I examined the scaled-response surveys and the narratives, it was clear that there was a discrepancy between the two forms of data. The scaled responses did not accurately indicate extent (frequency) of experiences, as the women’s emotional reactions to the questions affected their scaled responses.
Some women superintendents had lowered their scaled responses because they were trying to suppress their negative experiences. Some women raised their scaled responses because reliving the experiences caused them to have stronger emotional responses. One woman admitted she just lied because she was in denial.
What the scaled-response survey failed to illuminate was the impact of the experiences on their professional and personal lives. Scaled-response surveys cannot enlighten the topic by just rating frequency or importance of experiences. What did deepen the understanding of the experience of gender bias was interviewing women about the meaning of their scaled responses and asking in-depth questions regarding their experiences. It was through the interviews that women fleshed out the meaning of their experiences in context, and discussed how those experiences affected them professionally and in their personal lives.
In order to provide more female role models, women must be hired by boards of trustees. The California School Boards Association could include the topic of how personal beliefs and experiences can influence the selection of superintendents. Gender bias should be included in the topic; discussion of all kinds of bias would be relevant.
Hiring practices strive for representation of race and gender in candidates selected for interview. But the final decision about who is hired is left to the personal, and sometimes subconscious, preferences of a human panel. The individuals on interview panels and boards may need some assistance in recognizing their own subconscious preferences in order to check themselves for bias decisions.
Universities need to take active approaches to educate potential administrators regarding gender bias they may experience on the job. Many women superintendents complained that they were not prepared for what happened to them because no one, not even their administrative programs, warned them.
According to Margaret Grogan, author of “Voices of Women Aspiring to the Superintendency” (1996), there are major implications for reformed practice at the university level. “Policy makers and those responsible for the dominant discourse at universities and other institutions of higher education need to take a careful look at their training programs,” she said.
“Women’s experiences and those of persons of color must be included. More women and persons of color should be among the professors. Students of educational administration need to be able to see themselves reflected in the content of the programs and in the people from whom they are learning. They need to learn how women’s ways of leading function in the practical day-to-day administering of schools.”
Speaking out about bias
Women contribute to the perpetuation of gender bias by their own silence. Throughout my study, women described how they tried to ignore, forget and just move on after experiencing gender bias. Though they were upset and felt the treatment was degrading and unfair, too many kept silent.
One of the actions women can take is to speak out about bias and take direct action to address the issue in their own districts. Many women said their professional organization, the Association of California School Administrators, had not taken an active role in addressing gender bias issues in the superintendency or in administration. The women felt they had no voice and their professional organization did not provide them with one.
Women in the superintendency (and retired women superintendents) have a responsibility to speak aloud and break the silence surrounding gender bias. Women who have reached the position of authority — the superintendency — too often remain silent about their struggles and close the door on their struggling sisters who are aspiring to the superintendency by painting an inaccurate picture of their climb. Women have a major responsibility to address the very gender bias they have tried to ignore and too often have gone through and tried to forget.
Skrla’s research (2003) makes a point about women’s silence: “In presenting the finding of silence with women superintendents, I, along with other researchers, could be argued not to have ‘found’ something distinct and new when we found that our participants were reluctant to speak about the discrimination they faced or, in fact, that they may not have seen or acknowledged to themselves the discrimination as such. What we found, instead, could be one manifestation among many of the normalization of femininity within the culture of educational administration. To be appropriately female is to be silent.”
Silence on the part of women superintendents continues a culture that perpetrates bias against their own gender. Women have a professional and a moral responsibility to break the silence.
County offices of education could play an active role in helping to address gender bias among peers. County superintendents need to be responsible for the behaviors of their superintendents at meetings. Mutual respect is required for all superintendents, regardless of gender. County superintendents need to provide specific training in addressing gender bias to superintendents to assist them in training their staffs.
Appropriate mentorship for women is an important aspect of creating success for new (or even experienced) superintendents. The need to voice concerns and solve problems with a confidant will help women relieve stress and resolve job concerns. Women superintendents spoke of the loneliness of the position; the isolation that authority brought. Mentorships could be effective for women’s unique issues and could be critical for the well-being of superintendents and the districts they lead. Mentorship unique to women needs to be identified.
For women to have equal access to the superintendent’s position, women must speak out and the culture of gender stereotypes must to be broken. In order to affect culture, the conversation must happen in bigger venues than among the women themselves. It may take a village to raise a child, but it also takes a village to change culture and raise children who perceive both genders as equal partners in our society and in the leadership of our schools.
References
Blount, Jackie. (1998). Destined to rule the schools: Women and the superintendency, 1873-1995. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Grogan, Margaret. (1996). Voices of women aspiring to the superintendency. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Herr Van Nostrand, Catherine. (1993). Gender-responsible leadership: Detecting bias, implementing interventions. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
Skrla, Linda. (2003). “Mourning silence: Women superintendents (and a researcher) rethink speaking up and speaking out.” In Reconsidering feminist research in educational leadership, ed. M. D. Young and L. Skrla. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Skrla, Linda; Pedro Reyes and James Joseph Scheurich. (2000). “Sexism, silence, and solutions: Women superintendents speak up and speak out.” Educational Administrative Quarterly 36, No. 1: 32-64.
Marie Bañuelos has been in education for more than 35 years — 12 years as a teacher and 21 years as an administrator. She is currently superintendent of Golden Plains Unified School District in San Joaquin, Fresno County.