Anastasia is a Normal Developer because she is Unique∗

Abstract

In this paper it is argued that the barriers to equitable classroom practice in primary schools are not reducible to a lack of goodwill on the part of teachers. In particular, it is argued that the way in which the beliefs and practices which are part of the natural child discourse, and which are explicitly promoted through the process approach to language learning, do not free the 'natural ungendered child' to emerge. Instead, they produce those very gendered practices, which are in turn defined through that same discourse as naturally emerging. The natural child discourse mitigates against the possibility of equitable practice because it does not make available to the teacher ways of identifying and dealing with inequitable relations of power and gender production. It is argued that teachers do not need a change of will so much as a new discourse of equity. In this paper I draw on interview material collected from over 40 primary and early childhood teachers in 19 primary schools in four Australian education systems. These teachers were selected by their education systems because of their reputation in the area of gender equity. The original purpose of the interviews was to gather material for a series of case studies of good practice in relation to the education of girls. However, as I analysed the material I became fascinated by the ways in which the beliefs and practices which relate to child centredness acted as a barrier to equitable practice. Child-centred discourses have had an influential and long history in primary schools, but the themes have been given a new prominence recently in Australia through the promotion of the process approach to language learning by Commonwealth and State Education Departments. I select, in this paper, some of the key themes of the process approach to learning, and draw on teachers' accounts and explanations of their own practice to argue that the language and practices available to teachers in relation to good teaching practice, model pupils, indicators of intelligence, child development and differences between boys and girls are fundamentally naturalistic and individualistic. This not only mitigates against equitable classroom practice but contributes to the production of gender in significant ways. This is in spite of the best intentions of so many teachers who are genuinely committed to the principles of equality and respect, and who value all the children in their class equally. Attempts to ensure gender equity are unlikely to be fruitful unless the individualis- tic and naturalistic assumptions inherent in child-centred discourse are recognized by