Lack of professionalism to blame for sexist books

The following is an excerpt from an interview with Bachruddin Musthafa and Dedi Supriadi, two Bandung-based experts on the school curriculum and on the issue of gender-biased textbooks. The scholars support Khofifah's notion for a revision of textbooks noting that they will otherwise only strengthen mistaken views about the role of women in society.

Question: What is your comment about the recent finding that many elementary school textbooks are gender-biased? Bachruddin: It reveals a very important situation we cannot otherwise be sure about. Firstly, it concerns textbook writing. This important part of the educational support system has not been handled in a professional way as is evident in existing instructional materials.

I suspect that this mistake has resulted from ignorance on the part of the authors and illustrators, who usually do not have any professional preparation for this value-driven job.

As an editor of several school textbooks I have noticed that, at times, writers and illustrators just do not have the knowledge and ability to create politically correct language and illustrative examples.

As a result, they are bound to make politically incorrect characterizations or depictions. For example (some) textbooks associate certain jobs exclusively with a certain gender, or use names that depict a certain ethnicity when exemplifying undesirable acts, and unthinkingly use overgeneralizations when making examples.

Second, there are misconceptions about gender-based divisions of work and myths related to the supremacy of male students in academic matters. This observation is particularly disturbing because it has brought to our consciousness the fact that flawed values are (still) in operation in our educational praxis.

Unfortunately, the myths and misconceptions about the "gender divide" are still alive and well. Why are these gender-based stereotypes no longer defensible? Bachruddin: People in countries with a long tradition of research have long abandoned the assumptions that automatically place males at an advantage (over their female counterparts) simply because of genetic default.

These assumptions have proven faulty. For example, meta- analyses combined with analyses of over 50 research studies on gender differences in cognitive abilities (on verbal, spatial, quantitative, and science measures) have clearly indicated that the "gender divide" is more mythical than empirical. What has made gender-based stereotypes so prevalent? Bachruddin: One can only speculate. We have all been exposed from a very early age to male success stories and led therefore to believe that "tough jobs" can only be left to members of this gender. Men are breadwinners. They ought to go out -- and women are housewives; they are to stay at home as a domestic manager. Men are to hunt and win the fight; women manage the riches and provide comfort with motherly love.

This characterization has for decades been passed on from one generation to another by different means and for various reasons. This gender-based division of work in a family circle engenders rights and responsibilities for each member of the family.

This socially-constructed differentiation of roles has -- in the course of our development as a community -- turned into social expectations.

When used conventionally as a norm to guide social activities and interaction, this set of social expectations function as a social lens through which socially conforming and socially deviant acts are differentiated; "cultured behaviors" and "crude behaviors" are kept separate; "normal" and "strange" people get defined. Such is -- for better or worse -- our society's way of seeing things collectively. To what extent do instructional materials in school contribute to this establishment of values?

A lot, especially in affirming what is socially valued and devalued in society. Contrary to what many of us take for granted, youngsters are very discerning semioticians -- they can accurately "read" what their society expects of them explicitly or otherwise.

As uncovered by research cited earlier, young students have learned to think and behave in a socially expected way, albeit with a high price to pay. Instructional materials used at school have helped coax them into this costly sacrifice. How about differences in gender-based expectations and treatment by teachers?

This is what disturbs me most. Research has confirmed that -- while gender-related "cognitive wiring" differences are in actual fact negligible -- the expectations a teacher has for her/his students and the assumptions they make about their potential have tangible effects on their achievement.

The teacher's expectations -- whether high or low -- can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, if the teacher thinks that girls cannot handle complicated questions, there is a high probability that these girls will also believe that to be so.

As a result they are likely to think, wrongly of course, that no matter how hard they try they will not be able to handle the problem. This self-doubt will, in turn, discourage them from making their best effort in handling the problem, which, in effect, will further minimize the chance for a successful performance. Hence their low achievement.

So what should we do to provide better instructional materials for elementary schools across the country?

We should ensure that instructional materials are good, in that they are consistent with current theories in the discipline -- accurate in terms of informational content and value orientation, and learning activities or tasks which promote balanced cognitive and psychometric development as is necessary and appropriate.

It certainly requires thorough research before, during, and after production including tryouts to check responses from target learners.

Second, we should make sure that teachers who use these materials in their teaching are capable of orchestrating what they think, say, and do in a way that will make a good role model for students to follow.

Third, create an assessment system that enables both students and their teachers to improve their own learning without having to depend on an external support system.

In this way, both students and their teachers will be able to develop into self-initiated, life-long learners who can continually self-assess their own learning relative to the goals they have set for themselves and efforts they have made to achieve those self-defined goals. What is the root of the gender bias in school textbooks? Dedi: It's rooted in our cultural beliefs which are perpetuated from one generation to another. I regret that not many people realize that this really is an important issue. Changing a bias is certainly not an easy matter since it is culturally bound and something very tacit.

But we can still start by reconditioning people. Otherwise, the adverse impacts will continue as we have seen in many indicators such as girls' poor academic performance.

I am currently studying the participation rate of students at open junior secondary schools in seven provinces, and I find that girls remain the most disadvantaged group.

They do not benefit as much as boys do. Why? The answer is cultural -- it does not have anything to do with (government) policies of giving girls equal schooling opportunities. Should textbooks containing gender bias be withdrawn? Dedi: I would support such a motion, but how do we do it and how would we launch the revision? Revising and replacing these books is not a realistic idea, it would be too expensive. Instead, I think we need to be more systematic.

For instance we should start with the extensive training of textbook authors and editors. But then, who should fund this program?

Every year Indonesian families spend no less than Rp 289 billion to purchase elementary school textbooks alone ... (Rani R. Moediarta)