A SERIOUS BUSINESS:
An NUT survey of teachers‟
experience of sexism and
harassment in schools and
colleges
Analysed for the National Union of
Teachers by
Dr. S.R.St.J. Neill
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
CONTENTS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 3
2. THE SURVEY.................................................................................................. 4
3. THE RESPONDENTS (Appendix II) ................................................................ 5
4. THE EFFECTS OF PHASE ............................................................................. 7
5. SEXIST LANGUAGE OVERALL AND BETWEEN PUPILS ............................ 8
6. SEXIST BULLYING BY PUPILS OF EACH OTHER ....................................... 9
7. SEXIST LANGUAGE USED BY PUPILS DIRECTED AT TEACHERS ......... 10
8. IMPACT OF SEXIST LANGUAGE ON TEACHERS ...................................... 11
9. REPORTING SEXIST LANGUAGE............................................................... 12
10. WHAT DO TEACHERS WANT SCHOOLS TO DO ABOUT SEXIST
LANGUAGE?................................................................................................. 12
11. REASONS FOR NOT REPORTING SEXIST LANGUAGE ........................... 13
12. SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF TEACHERS BY PUPILS (Appendix IV) .......... 14
13. REPORTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT ........................................................ 16
14. WHAT DO TEACHERS WANT SCHOOLS TO DO ABOUT SEXUAL
HARASSMENT?............................................................................................ 16
15. REASONS FOR NOT REPORTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT ..................... 16
16. SEXUAL ASSAULT OF TEACHERS BY PUPILS (Appendices V & VI) ........ 17
17. TEACHERS‟ PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THEIR SAFETY ................................ 18
18. HAS SEXIST LANGUAGE AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT GOT WORSE?
(Appendix VIII) ............................................................................................... 18
19. MEASURES TO REDUCE SEXIST LANGUAGE (Appendix VII) .................. 18
20. MEASURES TO REDUCE SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF TEACHERS ......... 20
21. MEASURES TO REDUCE SEXUAL ASSAULTS .......................................... 21
22. SCHOOL POLICIES (Appendix VIII) ............................................................. 21
23. EXAMPLES OF SEXIST LANGUAGE COMMONLY HEARD IN SCHOOLS 22
24. COMMUNITY AND PARENTAL ATTITUDES TO WOMEN AND TO FEMALE
TEACHERS ................................................................................................... 23
25. SEXUALISATION OF WOMEN AND YOUNG GIRLS IN MEDIA AND
POPULAR CULTURE ................................................................................... 25
26. LESBIAN, GAY AND BISEXUAL RESPONDENTS....................................... 25
27. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 28
28. WHAT SHOULD SCHOOLS DO? ................................................................. 31
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 34
APPENDIX I ............................................................................................................. 36
APPENDIX II ............................................................................................................ 50
APPENDIX III ........................................................................................................... 56
APPENDIX IV ........................................................................................................... 59
APPENDIX V ............................................................................................................ 61
APPENDIX VI ........................................................................................................... 62
APPENDIX VII .......................................................................................................... 63
APPENDIX VIII ......................................................................................................... 68
APPENDIX IX ........................................................................................................... 70
APPENDIX X ............................................................................................................ 74
Acknowledgements
This survey was commissioned by the National Union of Teachers but was produced
with complete academic autonomy by the University of Warwick. The Union may
disagree with any, or all, of the statements made in this report. The assistance of
Rosamund McNeill and John Bangs of the NUT is gratefully acknowledged.
SUMMARY
This report is based on nearly 190 responses from a nationally distributed sample of
NUT members to a questionnaire on sexist language, sexual harassment and sexual
assault and the ways in which institutions currently support staff in dealing with these
problems, as well as respondents‟ views on how schools should take action against
them.
Comparison with similar surveys on unacceptable and disruptive behaviour in general
showed that sexist behaviour was a subset of general unacceptable behaviour but one
of particular concern to female and younger teachers, who formed a larger proportion of
respondents to this survey than the previous surveys of general unacceptable
behaviour.
Around half of all respondents to this survey reported that they had witnessed sexist
language or sexist bullying. The figures indicated that, where such behaviour occurs, it
occurs frequently.
Half of the respondents (49%) recalled hearing sexist language overall and usually such
sexist language was from one pupil to another. Over one third (38%) of teachers in the
survey witnessed sexist bullying between pupils.
Two-fifths of respondents (39%) had encountered sexist language being directed by
pupils at their colleagues although this was, as might be expected, less frequent than
hearing sexist language used between pupils or witnessing sexist bullying between
pupils.
One in five of the teachers had experienced sexist language being directed at them by
pupils during the last term (in 61% of these cases only once). One in twenty of the
respondents reported that sexist language is directed at them by pupils at least every
week.
A tenth (11%) of respondents reported that they had experienced sexual harassment at
some point in their careers and 8 per cent had experienced it within the last 12 months.
Fewer than half of teachers are reporting sexist language or incidents of sexual
harassment which they experience or witness.
Young female teachers and LGBT teachers were seen as at particular risk by their older
and heterosexual colleagues. Both younger and older women respondents identified the
fact that women teachers are subjected to comments of a sexual nature by male pupils
as a matter of concern which they did not think should be tolerated.
Only about half of serious incidents were reported to senior colleagues; often because
the teachers concerned made a professional judgement to deal with them immediately
and unaided, but largely because institutional support was seen as unsatisfactory.
Levels of dissatisfaction about the response to reported incidents were similar for sexist
language and sexual harassment: many respondents felt senior management did not
take these issues seriously. Many respondents felt that sexist and homophobic language
was institutionally tolerated and there was wide support for the range of suggested
strategies listed in the survey for dealing with such behaviour.
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 1 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Despite the requirement for schools to have policies in place for dealing with sexism and
homophobia, many respondents were not aware if their schools had instituted such
policies. Respondents with over seven years teaching experience were asked if the
problems of sexist language and sexual harassment had increased during their teaching
careers: they felt both had. Cultural and media influences were seen as contributory to
the problem.
Nearly half the respondents (44%) felt very safe, with almost all the remainder feeling
safe or fairly safe.
Teachers in schools under notice to improve were more likely to encounter sexist
language and sexual harassment from pupils (as overall categories) and were more
likely to seek school support in dealing with incidents but less likely, for sexist language,
to feel their concerns had been taken seriously.
International comparisons suggest that the problem of sexual harassment is now being
seen as extending beyond the original concept of a problem experienced only by
women, but also that policies to reduce it are only effective if promoted at the level of
individual institutions.
Comments about the weakness of institutional responses to reported events revealed
that teachers want anti-bullying policies to refer explicitly to sexism; they want
disciplinary processes to be invoked consistently to protect staff; and they want incidents
of sexist language and bullying to be recorded in incident books as with racist and
homophobic bullying.
Teachers want the sexual and sexist content in verbal abuse to be acknowledged and
challenged but do not feel backed up by senior management teams to do this. There are
not sufficient opportunities within the curriculum to explore sexism and sexual bullying.
Nearly two thirds of teachers believed more effective leadership from the SMT would
reduce the levels of dissatisfaction about what happens in practice currently.
At present many schools in the survey were reported to be failing to effectively support
their staff and to protect them from sexual harassment and sexist and sexual language
from pupils: evidence from other research indicates this contributes to staff stress and
diminished working effectiveness. It is therefore in schools‟ interests as institutions to
support their staff more effectively; current legislative moves to increase the authority of
teachers may assist teachers in challenging sexist language and reporting sexual
harassment.
All teachers have statutory protection from sexual harassment in the workplace under
the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Employers are therefore obliged by law to take
reasonable steps to prevent and deal with any sexual harassment of teachers by pupils.
The findings in this study suggest that schools do not give a high priority to meeting this
statutory duty and to taking such steps. They also suggest a low level of awareness
among teachers of the existence of this obligation on the part of their employer.
The findings in this study suggest that more needs to be done to promote anti sexist
school cultures: the legislative changes which will require schools from April 2007 to
positively promote gender equality and to develop a gender equality scheme and action
plan are a necessary and over-due requirement. A majority (60%) of respondents in this
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 2 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
study supported the value of a whole-school policy on sexism and promoting gender
equality.
1. INTRODUCTION
Anderson (2006) has reviewed the way in which thinking about sexual
harassment has developed since MacKinnon first developed the concept in 1979.
Anderson points out that there are several approaches to thinking about
harassment which have different merits and demerits. MacKinnon‟s original
concept focused on harassment of women by men, as an aspect of male political
and economic hegemony (Uggen & Blackstone 2004 cf. Robinson 2005):
homophobic harassment and the enforcement of conventional gender roles (for
example the harassment of heterosexual men who are not seen as masculine
enough or heterosexual women who are seen as unfeminine) can be seen as an
extension of this (Anderson 2006).
However Anderson points out that not all potential harassment fits into this
pattern.. In Anderson‟s view, the workplace differs from other public space in that
individuals who are offended cannot easily avoid the offensive situation; she
therefore considers it desirable that harassment is not seen purely as an inter-
individual matter, where the interests of one individual may conflict with those of
another, but an institutional responsibility of the workplace. Harassment, she
considers, can lead to economic harm to harassed individuals, who are
prevented from taking on work of higher status or pay which they could have
otherwise done, and their autonomy and dignity are compromised.
Organisations can also be damaged by harassment; Langout et al. (2005) were
chiefly concerned with the aspects of harassment which affected the
psychological well-being of victims (in the military), but they found that the
subjective experience of distress from harassment, and the experience of
harassment, had an even stronger effect on job satisfaction than they did on
psychological well-being. Decreased job satisfaction led to much lower
organisational commitment and lower reported workgroup productivity. They were
also able to show that subjective distress was not related only to the type of
harassment but that there was an interaction between the type and frequency of
harassment.
Broadly, the impact of behaviour such as sexist wordplay depended on its
frequency; when it occurred infrequently, its significance was uncertain and
respondents might disregard it; when it was pervasive it was unavoidably
oppressive. However other types of behaviour such as unwanted sexual attention
were distressing even if infrequent; they were perceived as oppressive regardless
of frequency.
Harassment in schools shows many of the same features described for
harassment in the adult workplace (Warwick et al. 2004) but is rather different
from that in the workplace because of its developmental implications. Nishina &
Juvonen (2005), though dealing with harassment in general rather than
specifically sexual harassment, showed the detrimental effect of harassment on
children‟s self-esteem, though witnessing harassment directed to others had
some protective effect against subsequent harassment experienced personally
because sufferers felt they were not alone. Troop-Gordon & Ladd‟s careful
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 3 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
developmental study (2005), again focusing on harassment in general, shows
that as pre-adolescent children develop more perceptiveness between the ages
of 9 and 11, they come to place more differentiated emphasis on the opinions of
peers, and adverse opinions have an increased potential for psychological
damage. Troop-Gordon & Ladd used a latent growth curve analysis to prove the
relationship between treatment received and self-perceptions in later years.
Chambers et al. (2004, cf. Warwick et al. (2004)) found that young teenagers
policed each others‟ sexuality, with controlling pressure being exerted against
females in general and lesbian and gay people in particular, despite a somewhat
contradictory view that individuals had the right to freedom in their own sexuality.
Chambers et al. thought that the appearance of policing at such a young age was
due to the increasing sexualisation of children in society. Pressure to conform to
social norms was seen by Robinson (2005) as a powerful force causing
harassment at secondary level.
Sexual harassment contributes to higher rates of psychological symptoms among
secondary girls than secondary boys (Gillander Gådin & Hammarström 2005,
Timmerman 2005), mirroring its effect among older workers (Rospenda et al.
2005). Witkowska & Menckel (2005) reported that Swedish high-school girls who
had not personally experienced sexual language or harassment saw these as
problems, though those who had been exposed saw most categories as more
serious problems than those who had not.
Not surprisingly, Wyss (2004) found that „gender nonconforming‟ (her expression
to cover a range of sexual orientations and self-expressions) American teenagers
had suffered very much more severely than their conventional counterparts,
including a range of serious physical and sexual assaults which had caused
severe psychological damage; Williams et al.‟s (2005) findings corroborate this.
Short (2006) explores how policies against peer harassment became widely
adopted in the United States through local action by administrators, reacting to
pressure in the educational press by activists and to the professional concerns of
educators, largely in advance of any formal case-law and despite some
opposition from judges who felt it inappropriate to make schools liable for the
actions of immature teenagers. She contrasts this rapid adoption in advance of a
binding legal requirement to the much slower adoption of workplace anti-
harassment policies in the U.S.A.
In the UK, with its more centralised education system, a range of policies, such
as Every Child Matters have been introduced in schools by matching central
government initiative to inspection by OFSTED (Warwick et al. 2004). However,
as discussed in the conclusions, policies do not necessarily translate into
beneficial results for staff members.
2. THE SURVEY
The survey (Appendix I) was designed in consultation between the National
Union of Teachers and the University of Warwick. It was in five sections, of which
the first contained closed questions covering characteristics of the respondents
and their institutions.
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 4 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
The next three sections dealt respectively with sexist language, sexual
harassment and the threat of sexual assault; in each section questions covered
whether, how often and where respondents had encountered these behaviours,
whether they had asked for support from their institutions, what support had been
received, what support respondents felt their institutions should have given, and,
if they decided against seeking support, why they had done so.
Each section included space for open-ended comments as well as closed
questions. The final section asked whether respondents had suffered actual
sexual assault, how safe they felt, whether they felt problems of sexist and sexual
behaviour had increased during their teaching experience, and what they felt
about a list of policies schools might implement to reduced sexist language,
sexual harassment and sexual assault.
A final space allowed open-ended comments about issues not covered, including
a request for respondents to list words used as sexist abuse in their institutions.
3. THE RESPONDENTS (Appendix II)
Of 2000 surveys sent out, 189 were returned with usable data, a response rate of
9.5 per cent.
The survey attracted more female respondents (82%) and young teachers (nearly
50% below 40 and 32% with less than 6 years‟ service) than similar surveys on
other aspects of violence and indiscipline (for Neill (2001) 70% were female, 35%
were below 40 and 22% with 6 or less years‟ service, for Neill (2005) 61% were
female and 26% below 40). The response rates to all three surveys were similar.
In discussing gender and age differences below, it has to be borne in mind that
this survey appears to have been completed by a high number of younger,
especially female teachers; possible reasons for this are discussed later.
Almost all respondents reported they were heterosexual, and unless indicated
otherwise, quotations are from heterosexual respondents; issues in relation to
LGBT teachers are discussed below in section 14.
Four-fifths of respondents (79%) were full-time and most were working in primary
(47%) or secondary (42%) schools, almost all (93%) co-educational. Most
commonly they were on the main scale or in receipt of TLR payment/
management points (37% each).
Very few schools were in special measures (1), under notice to improve (4 – all of
the respondents in these were inexperienced teachers with 3-9 years‟ service,
perhaps because of rapid staff turnover in these schools), or suffering from
serious weaknesses (2 – both with less than 3 years‟ service, again perhaps of
rapid turnover), and under half the respondents knew the proportions of pupils
who had SEN or were receiving free school meals. It is perhaps an indication of
how the constant relabelling of schools has disconnected staff, that 14 per cent of
staff did not know what type of school (community, voluntary aided, academy,
CTC etc.) they were working in!
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 5 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Teachers in schools under notice to improve were more likely to encounter sexist
language and sexual harassment from pupils (as overall categories) and were
more likely to seek school support in dealing with incidents but less likely, for
sexist language, to feel their concerns had been taken seriously. In one case in a
school which was under notice to improve, a pupil‟s permanent exclusion for
pushing had been overturned by the governors.
Teachers working in schools under notice to improve or in the serious
weaknesses category encountered some quite disturbing sexist language:
One experience which stands out is a 9 year old boy gesturing with hand
movements sexual movements whilst verbalising what his hand gestures
meant. I overheard this walking down the corridor – it was not directed at
me and the boy was talking (loudly enough for me to hear) to another boy.
I was shocked to hear a boy of this age using such explicit sexual
language and I did report it to my head teacher. (Primary, female, 21-28,
school under notice to improve)
C**t, wan**r, kn*b jockey, big girl‘s blouse. (Secondary gay female, 29-39,
school in serious weaknesses category )
Comments similar to ―she mustn‘t have got any in a while‖. ―I bet Miss is
Lezzie‖. Initially no action taken however after other students and staff
who had contact with this individual made complaints the [girl] was
removed from the group and put in a different lesson. (Secondary, female,
29-39, school under notice to improve)
The last teacher also encountered a physically harassing incident:
A student pulled his trousers down a little during a class ―supposedly‖ to
cool himself on the fan in the room. His boxer shorts were visible when he
did this.
However, as will be apparent in following sections, these incidents reported by
young teachers were matched by those which occurred to young teachers in
schools which were not under any notice to improve or similar measures.
However, young teachers may be particularly vulnerable in a failing school if
experienced colleagues who could support them are lacking.
It might be expected that gender and age would have an effect on the
experiences of respondents, but both potentially interact with phase (i.e. type of
school) as primary teachers have a higher proportion of female teachers than
secondary schools. Initial analysis showed that in some cases male teachers
were reporting more problems that female teachers, contrary to the usually held
view of harassment as a problem mainly for women.
However, once both gender and phase were cross-tabulated, it became apparent
that men were encountering more problems because more of them were working
in secondary schools. It is of course possible that some women avoid working in
secondary schools to avoid experiencing harassment, and that this strategy is
„successful‟ in that they are partly able to avoid it.
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 6 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Univariate analyses of gender and age showed no significant effects; interaction
between gender and phase is discussed below. Bivariate analyses including both
gender and age were carried out separately for primary and secondary
respondents to allow for the differences between these phases (described in
sections 5-12, where reference is made separately to the situation in primary and
secondary schools). These analyses usually showed no statistically significant
differences for secondary respondents, or for primary respondents where both
genders reported a problem – many categories were reported among primary
respondents only by females. This suggests that if women are choosing to work
in primary schools to avoid harassment, they are not always successful because
they, but not men, experience some types of harassment in primary schools.
Respondents were not always consistent in ticking all the answers, or reported on
incidents which had occurred outside the time-frame of the survey, so there are
some inconsistencies, where the total number of incidents reported is slightly
greater or less than those reported on in detail (e.g. in how the incidents were
coped with). It seemed better to tolerate these inconsistencies than to interpolate
data in cases where respondents had filled in only the closed questions without a
commentary on the detailed background.
4. THE EFFECTS OF PHASE
As might be expected and as is amply illustrated in the quotations below, the
problems of sexist language, bullying and harassment are characteristic of
mainstream secondary schools to a much greater extent than primary schools;
the few respondents from sixth-form colleges also reported a much more civilised
attitude.
On the other hand staff in PRUs and similar units experienced continual
problems, but this was generally accepted as an inevitable if unwelcome aspect
of the job:
Fortunately, sexually abusive language has been used against me very
seldom during my twenty year teaching career. Except when I worked at
an E.B.D. Special School when it would be used almost constantly.
(Secondary, female, 40-49)
Our pupils are all E.B.D. They use these tactics to engage you in other
things rather than do work. Or they are being challenged about their
behaviour. (Secondary special, female, 40-49)
Working in a PRU you anticipate verbal abuse but it seems to be more
and more a part of our day to day working life. Some can be desensitised
to it, but at times of stress it is demoralising and hurtful. Staff have walked
into a room to fetch a chair, book, etc, and come out totally distressed at
the torrent of abuse. Police have visited our unit and heard pupils speak to
teachers in such a way that they had said that if they had been as verbally
abusive in the street they would have been arrested for Public Order
offences. (PRU, female, 50-59)
As there were so few respondents in other phases, the statistical analysis
concentrates on the primary/secondary divide.
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 7 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Firstly, as might be expected, male respondents were significantly concentrated
in secondary schools and gender comparisons therefore have to take phase into
account.
The overall amounts of sexist language and bullying by pupils, sexist language by
pupils to other pupils, sexist bullying by pupils to pupils, and sexist harassment by
pupils were significantly greater in secondary schools and the only two cases of
threatened sexual assault and single case of actual sexual assault happened in
secondary schools.
However though sexist language from pupils to staff (colleagues) and sexist
language to the respondent happened more frequently in secondary than primary
schools, the differences were not large enough to be statistically significant.
There was also no statistical difference in the tendency of secondary, as opposed
to primary, respondents to report hearing sexist language or experiencing sexual
harassment.
Although primary schools are often seen as more supportive environments than
secondary schools (Neill 2001), teachers in both phases revealed similarly
professional attitudes to potential problems and there was no evidence of primary
teachers relying more heavily on support from peers or colleagues than their
secondary colleagues.
The interaction between phase and gender raises some difficulties of
interpretation. For example, some aspects of sexist language (for example
overhearing sexist language between pupils) are actually experienced more
commonly by male than female respondents, but this difference over the sample
as a whole is misleading. It occurs because male respondents are concentrated
in secondary schools where the problem is more severe; as discussed below for
individual behaviours, male teachers in secondary schools did not suffer more
serious problems than their female colleagues, and often male teachers in
primary schools did not encounter a problem at all (in some cases this may be
merely a chance effect because there are fewer of them).
As a statistical check, partial correlations controlling for phase (primary /
secondary) showed no significant gender differences. In the following sections,
primary and secondary results are reported on separately, with comments from
other settings where appropriate. Detailed figures for primary and secondary
respondents are in Appendices IX and X.
5. SEXIST LANGUAGE OVERALL AND BETWEEN PUPILS
Half (49%) the respondents had experienced sexist language (overall category)
(detailed figures for this and the following questions are in Appendix III).
In primary schools female teachers experienced overall sexist language
significantly more than their male colleagues (26 out of 77 women, none out of 9
men) but there was no difference for secondary teachers.
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 8 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Usually (48% of all respondents) the sexist language experienced was from one
pupil to another. When it occurred, this was a frequent problem: two-thirds of
respondents who encountered sexist language between pupils encountered it
once a week or more, with a fifth of them encountering it daily.
There was no statistical difference between the experiences of male and female
secondary teachers in how much sexist language between pupils they
encountered: only female primary teachers experienced sexist language between
pupils - male primary respondents did not report this problem.
6. SEXIST BULLYING BY PUPILS OF EACH OTHER
Fewer respondents (38%) encountered sexist bullying between pupils (as
compared to hearing sexist language used by pupils towards each other).
It was less frequent than sexist language with 59% of those who did encounter it
doing so „once a month or less often‟. Again there was no significant gender
difference for secondary respondents, so that female and male secondary
teachers experienced similar amounts of sexist bullying between pupils, and only
female primary respondents experienced sexist bullying between pupils; male
primary respondents did not report encountering such sexist bullying.
In some cases, especially in primary schools, the language which was reported
by respondents could be categorised as „gender stereotyping‟ rather than
behaviour which constitutes overt bullying:-
On discussing different sports, one ―cocky‖ boy of 9 years old told me that
I shouldn‘t do Judo because it‘s a boys‘ sport. We followed his comment
with lots more ―enlightening‖ discussion and excellent writing after further
research. Education of the child as to suitability of his attitudes was
already in progress. He had challenged girls in football team already and
the deputy head was ―talking to him‖. (Primary, female, 40-49)
‗Ignorant‘ comments from young children – e.g. ‗Those are ―girls‘‘ toys –
you can‘t play with them‘ (Primary, female, 29-39)
Young children may inherently have ideas of traditional roles e.g. police
are always men, cooks always women. They can use this in the classroom
especially in role play situations….[I] explain how traditional ideas/roles
can be / have been changed.
However, in other cases, primary-school sexist language certainly can be seen to
constitute sexist bullying:
Mentions/threats of rape by boys to girls – in one case a Y3 child was
subject to this term/threat when a Y6 boy told the Y3 child that a gang of
boys wanted to rape her. (Primary, female, 29-39)
Typical language is ―big tits‖ giggling & smirking at girls who wear bras. I
should say that I have, 3 years ago, moved to a rural area where the
incidence of this type of behaviour is very much less (almost non-existent)
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 9 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
than in the town schools where I have spent most of my teaching career.
(Primary, female, 50-59)
KS2 pupils using sexist language towards each other (particularly girls)
following a falling out – usually in the playground. My school is in a very
economically deprived area and children often use derogatory terms, such
as ―slag‖ etc. in anger towards other children without true knowledge of
the meaning or implications of what they are saying. They are simply
repeating language they have heard used around them, which they realise
is derogatory, but do not understand why this is so. (Primary, female, 60+)
Children insulting each other by targeting their mothers in a derogatory
manner. Male pupils becoming less respectful of female staff, especially
as there is minimal male backing in a primary school. This can be
attributed to a higher incidence of single parent children who are staying
with their mother and have less respect for women. (Primary, female, 60+)
Similar sexist language which can be considered sexist bullying occurred also in
secondary schools:
Heard this year: ‗Her arse would look big in anything. Nice tits‘. Pupils
often let slip the ‗f‘ word within earshot. Colleagues use ‗f‘ word in
staffroom occasionally. New game: ‗Sack Tapping‘ – which means
whacking boys‘ genitalia! (Ours is a very well-behaved rural school and
they seem to respect others in the main). (Secondary, female, 40-49)
Students‘ discussion about people being ‗fit‘ or otherwise. Constant
innuendo. Students touching each other inappropriately. (Secondary,
female, 21-28)
Most significant is girl on girl sexist language which emanates from current
trends in music particularly words like bitch, slapper and daily comments
about the reinforcement of female stereotypes particularly about their
relationships.(Secondary girls-only, female, 50-59)
A boy in Y8 said a girl would not guess the answer as she was blonde, I
asked him to justify himself & mentioned the fact that his sister and mother
were both blonde, was he calling them thick? Are all blondes thick? NO,
just the girls. I brought it up at a parents evening! And we laughed about it
and the boy said he didn‘t think blondes were dizzy anymore. (Secondary,
female, 21-28)
7. SEXIST LANGUAGE USED BY PUPILS DIRECTED AT TEACHERS
Two-fifths of respondents (39%) had encountered sexist language from pupils to
staff (i.e. colleagues of the respondent). This was relatively infrequent (once a
month or less in 69% of cases where it was encountered).
Once again it was female primary respondents who encountered sexist language
being directed by pupils to their colleagues; male primary teachers did not report
such language. There were once again no gender differences between female
and male secondary respondents.
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 10 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Direct sexist language from pupils to the respondent was less frequent, with
21 per cent having encountered it during the last term, in 61 per cent of these
cases only once: 5 per cent of all respondents experienced sexist language
directed at them once a week or more.
Again there were no gender differences among the 25 secondary respondents
who encountered this problem, and at primary level only female respondents
encountered it.
8. IMPACT OF SEXIST LANGUAGE ON TEACHERS
Respondents were asked to describe the most significant incident applying to
them in their own words, and to indicate where this incident happened.
Incidents happened most often in classrooms (52% of reported incidents),
corridors and playgrounds (24% and 16% of reported incidents respectively);
other locations accounted for only small numbers of incidents. These locations
are consistent with those reported by Jennett (2004).
Perpetrators were overwhelmingly (88%) male.
Pupils lack of respect for elders, including: teachers, staff, etc. Abusive
language a frequent attribute of children‘s everyday speech. (Primary,
female, 21-28)
Boys in my class laughing and gesturing that they have breasts when I
teach them P.E. (Primary, female, 21-28)
Particular pupil making sexual comments about me and my appearance.
The pupil would make out that it was done in ‗jest‘ but these comments
made me feel very uncomfortable and embarrassed to deal with him in the
classroom. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
Walking past a group of Yr10 boys to hear ‗is that the teacher you had in
the cupboard?‘ Recently joined my first school, group of Asian 6th form
boys began wolf whistling and hissing at me then a few, maybe 3 shouted
‗I‘ll do ya!‖, ―You‘d get it!‖ (Secondary, female, 21-28)
Comments about myself such as ―it must be difficult for any man to live
with her‖ or ―how did anybody marry her?‖ (Secondary, female, 50-59)
Most significantly pupils directed sexist abuse at one another both in and
out of lessons, particularly abusive name calling / inappropriate use of
body language and taunts which are sexual in nature. Have had
inappropriate sexual remarks made towards myself by both genders.
(Secondary, female, 29-39)
In a previous Hampshire school sexism and sexual harassment was very
common from pupils towards teachers, however there are very few
incidents of this kind [here]. (Sixth-form college, female, 21-28)
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 11 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Very often it is derogatory language used – have been called ‗scroat‘,
„bitch‘ ‗stupid cow‘, ‗nag‘. In particular 4 year 11 boys surrounded me at
end of lesson to say I was [missing, but implies the insults above].
(Secondary, female, 29-39)
A pupil in a maths group told me that I could do nothing about his
behaviour because I was weak and he implied very strongly that this was
because I am female. He told me that he would come and spit in my face
because I was a silly cow. The pupil later went on to assault a male
member of staff and as the police were involved he was put into
reintegration. (Secondary, female, 29-29)
A Year 12 pupil who I had verbally reprimanded in the lesson wrote down
on a piece of paper ―ginger pussy stinks‖. I sent him out for not working +
found this on his desk. Only after support from my NUT rep was he
removed from the course – his parents fully supported this. Previously the
Head had insisted that I continued to teach him: I refused. This was about
5 years ago. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
9. REPORTING SEXIST LANGUAGE
Respondents were asked how, if they reported „this‟ incident (i.e. the most
significant incident described in the respondent‟s own words), was the report
addressed?
Fewer than half the respondents who had experienced a significant incident of
sexist language (41%) reported it; reasons why the majority did not are discussed
more fully below.
Exactly half the 18 female primary respondents who had experienced an incident
reported it; 14 out of the 34 secondary respondents did so, with no significant
gender difference.
Of the 25 who reported an incident, 12 thought their concerns were taken very
seriously, with the rest having a range of less satisfied views. Similarly, most
thought that the outcome of the action taken by the school was only fairly
satisfactory (9) or had mixed views (6).
The most common responses undertaken by schools were follow-up action taken
with the perpetrator (15 cases), contacting the parents (10 cases) and logging the
incident (11 cases); in 7 cases other action was taken but in 3 cases the school
took no action.
Only 3 respondents raised the issue as a grievance.
10. WHAT DO TEACHERS WANT SCHOOLS TO DO ABOUT SEXIST
LANGUAGE?
Respondents who were dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint often
mentioned several actions which the school could have taken, most commonly
that:
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 12 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
the school behaviour policy should have been pursued to the extent of
exclusion (8 respondents);
the sexual content in verbal abuse should be recognised and challenged;
and
that sexism and sexual bullying should be explored through the curriculum
(6 respondents each).
Respondents also felt anti-bullying policies should refer explicitly to sexism; that
the disciplinary process should be invoked in respect of staff; and that sexist
language/ bullying should be recorded in an incident book. The following
comments were given:
Pupils very seldom use sexist language towards me, probably because
they realise that I won‘t accept it and will follow it up. However, what does
often happen is that they refer to me as ―she‖ in a very rude and
derogatory tone when I have to call for Snr. Staff support. This is often a
situation involving a boy speaking to a male teacher. Astoundingly, very
often the teacher concerned does not challenge this which I feel affirms
the student‘s poor attitude. (Secondary, female, 40-49)
Colleagues need to inform staff of the action taken – too often action is
taken but the member of staff involved is never told. (Secondary, female,
29-39)
Head has bullying tendencies – esp towards women. Tried to intimidate
me (verbally + by ―staring down‖) to change my opinion on punishment for
a pupil who had verbally abused me. Given my age + character the Head
failed in this ploy – but such behaviour could (+ does) intimidate younger
colleagues. (Secondary, female, 40-49)
11. REASONS FOR NOT REPORTING SEXIST LANGUAGE
Respondents were asked, if they did not report incidents, to explain why not.
The last quotation in section 10 indicates one common set of reasons for
respondents not reporting incidents – that respondents lacked confidence that
their line manager or the SMT would take action. 9 of the 34 respondents who did
not report incidents gave this as the reason: 8 of the 34 respondents said that
they did not report incidents because their school/college took no action to
confront sexist language.
It would not be taken seriously and you would be labelled as
unreasonable. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
However, more respondents (25) reported that their professional judgement was
to deal with the incident directly, even in some quite severe cases:
I spoke to the pupils concerned. (Primary, female, 40-49)
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 13 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Student with statement of SEN / ASD / EBD – as SENCO I considered
that the appropriate way to deal with the situation [inappropriate and
threatening language, including sexist terms. ―you f--------- bitch, ---- stupid
pathetic woman‖ with accompanying threatening body language used by a
Yr11 student when told to stop using a computer] was to tell the student to
leave the room (SEN base at lunchtime) in order to calm down.
(Secondary, female, 50-59)
The latter quote is an example of staff making allowances for pupils with special
educational needs or learning disabilities and shows a parallel with the
respondent (in the next section) who dealt with an incident of sexual harassment
herself.
Some respondents also indicated that their judgement was that the incident did
not need to be reported (13 cases).
In 6 cases, teachers reported that they were too busy to report it.
12. SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF TEACHERS BY PUPILS (Appendix IV)
Harassment tended to be verbal and some incidents reported by respondents
under the section on harassment were similar to those reported in the previous
section as sexist language directed at respondents themselves.
Twenty respondents (11%) reported that they had experienced harassment at
some point in their careers with 15 (8%) experiencing it in the last 12 months.
These respondents were overwhelmingly female and in secondary schools (12 of
the total; both primary respondents were female), but the numbers were too small
to be statistically significant.
Of the 15 who had suffered harassment during the last year, five had
experienced harassment more than five times in the last year and one was
experiencing it daily.
As for sexist language, classrooms (10 cases) and corridors (5 cases) were the
most frequent locations, with almost all perpetrators being male.
Unfortunately, not all respondents described their most significant incident, so we
do not have detailed accounts of some incidents which appeared from the closed
questions to be of particular interest.
Incidents might be specific comments or insults on clothing or appearance:
Only experienced once from an ex-pupil outside of school environment,
reference was made to breasts (shouted in through pub door). Fortunately
I was with a male (and other female) staff who at the nearest opportunity
(following day / morning) reported (agreed by myself) incident to head
teacher and then to ex-pupil‘s parents (head teacher very supportive as
were parents). (Primary, female, 29-39)
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 14 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Students commenting about cleavage or that they can see knicker line etc.
Then saying what they think of that. Comments about clothing.
(Secondary, female, 21-28)
One pupil who was known to be disrespectful of females made explicit
comments – I cannot recall precisely what they were but I do recall that I
told other staff that if they had been made to me in the pub I‘d have called
the police. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
Personal comments about the way I dress, ―You are looking fit miss!‖
(Secondary, female, 50-59)
The last incident, though ostensibly complimentary, was clearly seen as an
unwanted proposition identified by the respondent as harassment. Such incidents
were identified as a problematic type of behaviour especially for younger female
staff working with the older pupil age-groups.
Obviously any teacher who acted on such „propositions‟ would be liable to
dismissal for inappropriate conduct. This may or may not be realised by the
perpetrators but it is clear that that students are aware of their power to make
teachers uncomfortable and undermined by making comments of either a sexual
or sexist nature.
Respondents reported being subjected to attention of a sexual nature:
As a young teacher in secondary school found notes of sexual nature
addressed to me. (Primary, female, 50-59)
Happened when first became teacher – wolf whistling in corridors.
(Secondary, female, 29-29)
A yr 13 boy asked me if I would go home with him. I told him he was being
very inappropriate & never to say things like that again. (Secondary,
female, 21-28)
Real issue for young female teachers in all-boys schools – now I am old /
established, less so! (Secondary, female, 50-59)
Younger male & female teachers seem to be seen as ―fair game‖ to some
pupils to touch, in some cases and to make sexual innuendo towards.
There is more evidence of sexual bullying and harassment than of sexist
language.., though there have been times where pupils make assumptions
about unmarried males or females. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
In adult education- comments in classroom; waiting for me after lessons;
following me to car park; ringing me at home (Secondary, female, 50-59)
Other examples were verbal or non-verbal insulting behaviour (e.g. inappropriate
closeness or display):
Being shouted at and called names like ―Fucking Whore‖. Trying to
intimidate me. (Secondary special, female, 40-49)
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 15 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Not recently – now I do supply – most threatening body language –
towering over, deliberately leaning in etc. (Primary and secondary supply,
female, 60+)
13. REPORTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT
As was the case for sexist language, fewer than half the respondents (8) had
reported it; the reasons for not reporting harassment were similar to those for not
reporting sexist language.
There was no significant gender difference in reporting by secondary
respondents, and no male primary respondents reported having experienced
sexual harassment.
In three cases no action was taken; in the other five follow-up action was taken
with the pupil, and there was an investigation by the head teacher/SMT in three
cases; parents were contacted in two cases and the incident logged in 2 cases.
Not surprisingly half the respondents (4) felt that the outcome was not at all
satisfactory and that their concerns about sexual harassment were not taken at
all seriously; the others mostly had mixed views.
None of the respondents raised the incident as a grievance.
Overall, possibly because harassment was seen as a more serious issue than
sexist language, respondents were less satisfied with the way in which it had
been treated.
14. WHAT DO TEACHERS WANT SCHOOLS TO DO ABOUT SEXUAL
HARASSMENT?
As was the case for sexist language, the commonest response (3 cases) was
that the behaviour policy should have been pursued up to the point of excluding
the pupil concerned. Two respondents thought the disciplinary procedure should
be invoked.
Single respondents thought that harassment should be recorded in an incident
book; that sexual content in harassment should be recognised and challenged;
that harassment should be explored through the curriculum; that anti-bullying
policies should refer to it explicitly; and that other action should be taken.
Student should have been made to apologise and accept responsibility.
Should then have been monitored / followed up. (Secondary, female, 29-
39)
15. REASONS FOR NOT REPORTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT
The pattern of reasons for not reporting the incident were similar to those for
sexist language.
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 16 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Six respondents reported that their professional judgement was to deal with the
incident directly and 5 that their professional judgement was that it did not need
to be reported – but lack of institutional support was relatively more important.
Lack of confidence that the line manager or SMT would take action was reported
in five cases: fear of being ridiculed or trivialised, feeling embarrassed or
uncomfortable in discussing it and the school/college taking no action to reduce
sexual harassment were reported in three cases each.
So far as can be judged from this small sample, lack of support is more salient for
sexual harassment than it is for sexist language. Respondents feel more let down
by the system when it fails to support them over experiences which they cannot
disregard because of an explicit threat to their safety or self-worth.
Teachers in night schools have no real support systems (Secondary,
female, 50-59)
16. SEXUAL ASSAULT OF TEACHERS BY PUPILS (Appendices V & VI)
Two cases were reported of sexual threats, one in the corridor and one outside
the school; both were by boys to young women teachers.
An incident which had occurred in the last twelve months had not been reported
and had been dealt with directly:
A student I was reprimanding said something about grabbing my breasts. I
heard him and challenged him. He denied it, then said he was talking to
his friend. This comment made him look ridiculous and his two friends
made fun of him so I just left it at that. I felt I‘d made my point and this
result made me feel empowered, and he knew I could have made more of
it and didn‘t. His behaviour since towards me has been fine. (Secondary,
female, 29-39)
Another incident had happened away from the school site:
Not in school but it has happened outside of school by a young boy.
(Secondary, female, 21-28)
As with incidents of sexist language and sexual harassment there seems to have
been a lack of institutional support to these teachers following instances of
threats of sexual assault.
One incident of sexual assault was reported, again by a boy to a young woman
teacher:-
But only one, in my first year or so of teaching – a boy pinched my bum. I
responded very forcefully – told him never to do such a thing again – he
apologized and no similar recurrence. I didn‘t report him because was
aware of possible ―fuss‖ that could ensue. I think that over-reaction to
things like this can damage young, teenaged boys. (Secondary, female,
40-49)
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 17 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
This reaction characterises the calm and professional approach taken even to
serious physical incidents.
17. TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THEIR SAFETY
Nearly half the respondents (44%) felt very safe, with almost all the remainder
feeling safe (24 %) or fairly safe (27%).
No respondents answered „not safe at all‟; 2 per cent of respondents felt „not very
safe‟. There was a difference between heterosexual and LBGT respondents
which is discussed below.
Many respondents had been working less than 10 years as teachers so were
unable to answer a question as to whether they felt more or less safe about their
workplace than 10 years ago.
Out of those respondents who answered this comparative question, 54 per cent
felt less safe than they did 10 years ago. The remaining 46 per cent believed that
they were safer or that safety levels had not changed.
18. HAS SEXIST LANGUAGE AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT GOT WORSE?
(Appendix VIII)
Respondents were asked to answer only if they had at least seven years‟
teaching experience. About a third of respondents, mostly younger teachers,
therefore did not answer these questions, which were about sexist language and
sexual harassment.
Out of the respondents that had taught for seven years or longer, over half (52%)
thought sexist language had got worse: 22 per cent of these experienced
teachers reported that it had not.
Of these respondents 31 per cent thought sexual harassment had got worse, with
22 per cent again thinking it had not. As might be expected from the relative
infrequency of harassment, 47 per cent did not know if it had got worse or not.
19. MEASURES TO REDUCE SEXIST LANGUAGE (Appendix VII)
Respondents were asked what strategies would reduce sexist language in
schools/colleges.
The most effective of the suggested strategies was thought to be explicit
reference to sexist language in anti-bullying policies and harassment policies
(66% of all respondents agreed).
This was followed in popularity by the need for strategic leadership from the SMT
(62% agreed – a sharp contrast to the levels of dissatisfaction with support in
practice, and supported by some of the measures listed in the following
paragraph).
Other measures supported by a majority of respondents were strategies to
recognise and challenge sexual content within verbal abuse (60%); training for
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 18 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
school governors and SMT on understanding of sexism and gender equality
(59%); recording incidents in an incident book (55%); and INSET on gender
equality and suitable strategies (52%).
Many of the respondents supported using single-sex groupings to explore
sensitive issues (39%). This is an interesting finding in light of the current debates
about the value of single sex classes in terms of raising self esteem of young girls
and encouraging them to take subject options which are non gender-typical.
Respondents also suggested that it was necessary for schools to adopt a zero
tolerance approach to sexism:
My experience is that a policy has to be agreed, & then followed
consistently by all staff and treated seriously by SMT if it is to be effective
in any way at all. (Primary, female, 50-59)
Use same format as for safer recruitment i.e. refer to anti-sexist policies in
job advertisements. Pupils / staff to sign contracts stating they will not be
sexist (and racist!) which can be used as part of disciplinary proceedings.
(Primary, male, 40-49)
It‘s about confronting sexist language + not coming up with more policies
+ reports to fill in. (Secondary, female, 21-28)
Should be picked up and acted upon as soon as possible with pupils –
deal with straight away – how would they feel if sexist language was
directed at them usually works. Repeat offenders – involve parents and, if
necessary police (we have one in school). (Secondary, female, 50-59)
Respondents also suggested a variety of other measures to engage young
people themselves, their and parents and the wider community in recognising
and challenging sexist language:
Pupil self advocacy – pupils involved in developing solutions & being
involved in the development of policies to combat this type of
discrimination. School councils, peer mediation, pastoral support + good
quality PSHE incorporating equality issues. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
Inset for students!! Really, this is a much larger problem because sexist
language has become acceptable outside of the most politically correct.
(Secondary, male, 29-39)
Engage parents/carers – ensure they know school‘s policy re sexual
harassment/language & understand the consequences for students who
use this sort of language. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
The level of problem was also seen as specific to particular groups of pupils or
particular school settings:
Sexist language is the first refuge of angry challenged pupils who need to
vent their frustration – other coping strategies for these pupils may help
some. (Secondary, male, 29-39)
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 19 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Post 16 teaching allows for an environment where students feel
comfortable ―coming-out‖ without / minimising fear of harassment if the
above [the listed measures to reduce sexist language] are regarded as
important by staff lead. (Sixth-form college, female, 40-49)
20. MEASURES TO REDUCE SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF TEACHERS
The pattern of responses to this set of questions was similar to the previous set;
inspection of the questionnaires showed that many respondents had closely
matched views, though some differentiated their responses to the two sets of
questions. In general support for the measures was high, though they were seen
as less effective in dealing with the problem of harassment than that of sexist
language.
Again the most effective of the suggested strategies was thought to be explicit
reference to sexual harassment in anti-bullying policies and harassment policies
(62% of all respondents agreed) followed by strategic leadership from the SMT
(60% agreed).
Other measures supported by a majority of respondents were strategies to
recognise and challenge sexual content within verbal abuse (60%); training for
school governors and SMT on understanding of sexism and gender equality
(52%); and recording incidents in an incident book (54%).
Just under half of respondents supported INSET on gender equality and suitable
strategies (47%) and more than one in three of the respondents supported using
single-sex groupings to explore sensitive issues (36%).
Respondents advocated the need for whole-school strategies to prevent and
respond to sexual harassment by pupils:
Zero tolerance for this behaviour – at least fixed term exclusion, involve
police – meeting with parents / carers. Teach students what sexual
harassment means – through PSE time etc. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
Whole gut policy to tackle homophobia and sexual harassment which is
monitored by Ofsted. (Secondary, female, 21-28)
Clearly defined sanctions & effective follow through & consistency of
approach. (Secondary, female, 40-49)
Some respondents highlighted the treatment of women outside schools and the
discrimination they face and identified this as a factor contributing to negative
attitudes within schools:
If sexually incited / related crimes in [the] community were successfully
dealt with (i.e. rape cases) this would send a message to students / young
people that such acts were wrong. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
Not accepting sexual harassment in school, by the whole school
community. (Primary supply, female, 29-39)
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 20 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
21. MEASURES TO REDUCE SEXUAL ASSAULTS
Respondents considered curriculum measures were most likely to be effective:
preventative education within PHSE about all forms of violence against women
was thought effective by 64 per cent of respondents (though a few pointed out
that education was also needed about violence against men).
A majority (60%) of respondents supported the value of a whole-school policy on
sexism and promoting gender equality.
More than half the respondents (52%) thought that strategic leadership from the
SMT would be effective.
More instrumental measures were seen as less effective; 45 per cent supported
the use of panic buttons/alarms and 22 per cent considered security personnel
would be effective.
The potential value of a positive school ethos is discussed by respondents in the
following comments:
Opening up the issue(s). Counselling available for victims and ‗bullies‘.
(Secondary, female, 50-59)
An active school ethos of equality and whole staff working together to
change attitudes. (Secondary, female, 21-28)
It is about promoting equality culture through all aspects of school. Think
male staff have major role to play in not promoting sexual stereotypes/
engaging in sexist language. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
These comments indicate how teachers consistently use their professional
judgement in order to protect themselves from risk:
Never be alone with a boy or girl in a classroom in case wrongful
accusations of any kind could be made. (Secondary, female, 60+)
Staff being informed of students with violent backgrounds or with records
of harassment and procedures put into place to reduce risks. CCTV in
isolated parts of campus. (Sixth-form college, male, 29-39)
All pupils to be aware that any incidents will be reported to the police.
(Secondary, female, 50-59)
22. SCHOOL POLICIES (Appendix VIII)
Four-fifths (81%) of respondents knew that their schools had a whole school
equal opportunities policy (18% did not know or did not answer this question).
Only 25 per cent of respondents knew that their institution had a pupil behaviour
policy covering sexual harassment and bullying and 20 per cent said their
institution had a workplace policy covering sexual harassment and bullying.
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 21 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
A striking aspect of the latter two questions was how many, especially younger,
teachers, did not know or did not answer the questions about whether their
school had a pupil behaviour policy covering sexual harassment and bullying and
a workplace policy covering sexual harassment and bullying – 49 per cent and
59 per cent respectively! It has to be assumed in such cases that respondents did
not know because there was no policy, but if policies exist, they are certainly not
being publicised to new recruits to the staff.
23. EXAMPLES OF SEXIST LANGUAGE COMMONLY HEARD IN SCHOOLS
Some respondents listed (as requested) the words used as sexist abuse in their
school. Respondents were invited to use asterisks to describe swear words. The
following language was encountered by primary respondents:
From very young children such language as you fucking c*nt (to each
other, hasn‘t been used to staff yet). (No details given)
KS2 pupils using sexist language towards each other (particularly girls)
following a falling out – usually in the playground. My school is in a very
economically deprived area and children often use derogatory terms such
as ―slag‖ etc. in anger towards other children without true knowledge of
the meaning or implications of what they are saying. They are simply
repeating language they have heard around them, which they realise is
derogatory, but do not understand why this is so. (Primary, female, 60+)
However, as might be expected, language which was very derogatory about
women and female pupils was even more prevalent among adolescents in
secondary schools:
Commonly used words – eg. shouted out in corridors & playground –
―pu**y‖ ―cu*t‖ ―bi*ch‖ (Secondary, female, 40-49)
Gay, queer, slut, slag, whore, bitch, w*nker, c*nt, lesbo, slapper, sheep-
shagger. (PRU, female, 50-59)
Perv, w*nker, c*nt, homo, ginger, totty. (Secondary special, female, 50-59)
Gay – biggest with boys; slag; cow; bitch; scroat. (Secondary, female, 29-
39)
The words commonly used are ―shag‖ and ―f*ck‖ among of boys
discussing what they‘d like to do to any female they fancy – will even call
out to girls ―Come on, give us a fuck (or shag)‖ (Secondary female, 50-59).
Wide range of sexual language usually student/student, ‗fuck you‘,
‗motherfucker‘, ‗shag your mum‘. Swearing / sexual language in Urdu.
Pupils will say if other pupils swear at staff in Urdu. This happens
frequently (according to pupils). (Secondary, male, 50-59)
Some of the language described by respondents identifies how boys of
secondary age use derogatory and sexually explicit insults about their peers‟
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 22 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
mothers or female relatives as a way to bully and insult each others‟ masculinity
and standing within the group:
„Sket‘ – meaning slag, gay, batty boy, slag, bitch, tramp, poof, ‗your mum‘s
pussy‘, slut, ‗tight‘ meaning frigid, ‗easy‘ meaning sexually promiscuous,
c—t, twat, prick, your mum, ‗I‘m your uncle‘, ‗I‘ve f--- your mum / your
sister‘ also sexual words in other languages which are known to all kids.
(Secondary, female, 29-39)
Monkey face – black – honky – homo – Nazi – towards a lad born in
Germany with British forces. Prejudiced remarks about immigrants.
Insulting mothers is very pejorative. She‘s a slag, about female pupils.
Reference to a boy having intercourse with another boy‘s mother (untrue
of course but very nasty). ―She‘s dirty she told me she lets boys touch her‖
said one girl of another; I suspected jealousy as the motive as the girl
referred to is very pretty. (Secondary, female, 60+)
Generally pupils at our school use a lot of sexual language. Pupils
regularly insult one another by saying the ―f*uck their mother‖ ―lick **‘s piss
flaps‖ ―suck c*ck‖ and other such comments. The school tend to adopt a
―well, what do you expect from their background‖ attitude and I feel too
much is accepted but is now so widespread that it would take all lesson to
deal with everything fully. I now adopt an approach of discussing the
inappropriateness of the language with individuals and following up if no
improvement made. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
24. COMMUNITY AND PARENTAL ATTITUDES TO WOMEN AND TO FEMALE
TEACHERS
The comment about swearing in Urdu relates to an issue raised in some of the
specific comments quoted earlier. Differences in cultural expectations between
some groups and the impact of this on school culture were discussed by some of
the respondents:
I work in a diverse Junior school outside of London. A large number of
Turkish students attend the school. It is my feeling as well as that of many
of my colleagues that a majority of these boys hold little respect for female
teachers and neither do their parents. They are not supportive to female
teachers and often believe what the student says over the teacher.
(Primary, female, 21-28)
Group of boys of a particular religion not doing what asked and I was told
‗we don‘t have to listen, our religious leader says‘! (Primary, female, 21-
28)
When I worked in a 95% Muslim school in Bradford there was an air of
male superiority among students. I cannot recall a specific incident.
(Secondary, female, 29-39)
Re: Muslim Asian girls – this group is frequently subjected to ―unfriendly‖
attitudes from both boys & girls if they fail to conform to certain norms. For
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 23 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
example, if they don‘t want to wear a headscarf. (Secondary, female, 40-
49)
The respondents‟ views reflect parallel desires to respect the religious beliefs of
the communities in which their schools were situated and to challenge
discrimination, and stereotyping of, women and young girls where they find it.
Lack of community backing for educators is by no means confined to groups of
certain religions or faiths; parental lack of support for the school among the white
population was mentioned by a number of respondents to the 2001 survey on
unacceptable behaviour (Neill 2001) and it recurs here:
Male parent ―hinting‖ that their child‘s behaviour wouldn‘t be quite the way
it is (poor behaviour / challenging) if there was a male teacher for the class
(completely untrue + proved every PPA time which male teacher takes
class – if anything child‘s behaviour worse! In previous school
(Manchester) threatening behaviour (not sexual) from parent (male) very
intimidating – acting head teacher barred him from school premises.
(Primary, female, 29-39)
Have not personally experienced problems as I teach Y1s but have had to
exclude parents from playground due to bad language. Pupils seem to
swear and use sexist language as normal conversation more today than
when I began teaching – parents / tv examples? (Primary, female, 50-59)
This is a ‗typical‘ ‗middle England‘ school – low % of students from
minority (ethnic) groups. Local ‗culture‘ sees little wrong in using sexually
inappropriate language. Some parents are poor role models – students
imitate language & behaviour at home. Not all parents are supportive of
sanctions against sexual language. Worryingly girls seem to accept sexist
language by boys as the norm! and also some incidents of sexual
harassment. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
Lack of respect for teachers‟ authority, and the climate created by the widely-
reported cases of teachers being accused (often falsely) of molesting children,
concerned some respondents:
Students are aware of their rights but not their responsibilities. Cases of
students saying to both male & female staff that they‘ll say the teacher has
hit / touched them & other students saying they‘d support their friend v.
teacher – patently untrue. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
The most common concern is related to pupils questioning your sexuality,
usually with the intention of causing embarrassment. More recently a
worrying trend to accuse all teachers of paedophilia is beginning to occur.
My own limited experience is not entirely worrying but I have been referred
to as ―Paedo‖ merely because I sat next to a female student to help her.
This is a very worrying development for all teachers. Perhaps it is only a
matter of time before a teacher who deals with this nonsense finds
themselves in a very unfortunate situation. (Secondary, male, 29-39)
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 24 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
25. SEXUALISATION OF WOMEN AND YOUNG GIRLS IN MEDIA AND POPULAR
CULTURE
The atmosphere in schools of tolerating and normalising sexism and sexual
language was seen by respondents as partly due to a greater emphasis on
sexuality in the media and in goods for children. Comments included:
Less sexist material on TV / media / at home! (Secondary, female, 40-49)
Put Sunday Sport / lads mags on top shelf. Desexualise children‘s
merchandise – Playboy logo on stationery – sexually suggestive images /
slogans on girls‘ clothes etc. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
American gangster rap is often popular with students as are sexist
magazines such as Nuts and Loaded, while these aren‘t sold on campus
newspapers such as The Sun are…Girls often have Playboy pencil cases,
bags, T-shirts or even tattoos. I think this reflects a wider problem in
society. (Sixth-form college, male, 29-39)
If society itself lacks respect (for women or men) then we haven‘t much
hope in schools. However I teach in a school (small village primary) where
we care for and respect each other, staff and pupils alike. We have to set
the example! (Female, 50-59)
Same old stereotypes and language!! Photo and staff comments made by
male assistant head. [The local newspaper photo recreated a 1968/9
‗group of girls daring to bare in miniskirts‘; the staff comment was ―We
have taken a line up of our current beauties in approximately the same
place…Today‘s beauties looking very smart in their suits are sixth-
formers‖] (Secondary, female, 50-59)
Some respondents felt that the educational needs of boys and girls could not be
met by ignoring the different needs of young women and young men:-
I don‘t see genders as equal – just the chances/opportunities that
everyone should have. (Female, primary, 29-39)
It depends on the school you are totally. I firmly believe that boys & girls
should be taught separately for some lessons because this will give them
the opportunity to learn about their own gender & the opposite gender
without being influenced in their opinions by the opposite gender.
(Secondary, female, 29-39)
26. LESBIAN, GAY AND BISEXUAL RESPONDENTS
Most respondents reported themselves to be heterosexual; a small minority of
respondents did not report their gender or sexual orientation, or described
themselves as gay (4), bisexual (1) or lesbian (1) - there were no reported
transsexual respondents.
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 25 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
This total of six LGBT respondents is in line with Warwick et al‟s (2004) estimate
that 2.6 per cent of the workforce may have had a same-sex partner in the last
five years.
Respondents were not asked to report whether they had made their sexuality
public and none stated whether they had explicitly done so. Given the concern
expressed below about homophobia by heterosexual respondents, it seems likely
that LGBT respondents would see themselves as „at risk‟ despite the requirement
for all schools to protect LGBT teachers from discrimination and bullying to meet
the requirements of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations
2003 (HMSO 2003a,b). Warwick et al. (2004) noted that teaching was the
profession where LGBT individuals felt least able to „come out‟.
The following cannot be regarded as definitive in view of the small numbers
involved; a specifically focused sample would be necessary to produce enough
respondents for statistical generalisations to be made. Differences between
LGBT and heterosexual respondents must be interpreted with caution because of
the small numbers involved.
Most LGBT respondents were on the main scale, whereas a high proportion of
heterosexual staff had TLR points. LGBT respondents were slightly more likely to
be working in secondary schools than their heterosexual colleagues.
Many heterosexual respondents reported homophobic insults formed a common
part of the language used between pupils:
‗Gay‘ used as insult more frequently now. I work in a small-ish first school
in Suffolk – not a large city comp… (Female, 29-39)
„Gay‘ is commonly used as an insult and ‗lesbian‘ is creeping in among
girls. (Primary, female, 50-59)
I find the main problem is anti-gay language. I feel more policies on this
and education to do with this is needed. The kids who do have sexuality
issues often have nowhere to turn / do not know what to do / where to go
for help. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
―That‘s gay!‖ & all the usual plethora of words directed at labelling women.
(Secondary, female, 21-28)
As noted earlier, the word ‗gay‘ is used as a negative adjective – without
necessarily referring to homosexuality. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
Pupils regularly call each other ―gay‖ ―whore‖ ―gayboy‖ + ―dickhead‖.
(Secondary, female, 40-49)
‗F‘ word. Calling people ‗gay‘ (Primary and secondary supply, female, 50-
59)
Mild jibbing between pupils. Use of term ―gay‖ to describe something seen
as not being ―cool‖! (Secondary, male, 40-49)
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 26 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Pupils use the word ‗gay‘ frequently – sometimes not as a sexist taunt.
The word has evolved to mean [more] than a sexual orientation – but it is
none the less used negatively. P.S. This was not a term directed at me –
but at other students. (Secondary, female, 29-39)
Many heterosexual respondents also reported negative comments made in
conjunction with questioning the sexual orientation of staff and students:-
Students calling each other ―gay‖ (and me sometimes) has become
increasingly commonplace. As a head of department the most serious
incident I have had to deal with was false rumours towards a teacher that
they had abused a pupil on a school trip. (Secondary, male, 29-39)
Pupils – boys – ‗Are you gay, Sir?‘ the fact that I have 3 children doesn‘t
always count for much! Teaching at a girls‘ school I don‘t have boys to
avoid work. I feel the problem needs tackling more with boys than girls.
(Secondary, male, 40-49)
At the end of a workshop, an argument broke out between a boy and a girl
(15 yrs). He called her a ―f-----g bitch‖. She screamed back at him ―Get f---
---d you queer c—t‖ The boy is regularly accused of being ‗gay‘ and has
had a homophobic chatline set up around / about him by other students.
He lives his life under ‗suspicion‘ of being homosexual. (Secondary,
female, 29-39)
In my girls‘ school there is frequent use of the word ‗lesbian‘ by pupils
about other pupils. I have heard of male teachers being referred to as
‗gay‘ by pupils. Sometimes colleagues refer to particular books / activities
as being inappropriate in a ‗girls‘ school‘. I also hear pupils referring to
other pupils as ‗slags‘ / ‗slappers‘ in lunchbreaks / corridors or while
having arguments which get reported. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
Pupils deliberately use sexist language to offend other pupils and openly
speculate on sexual orientation of a few members of staff - especially
accusations of being ―gay‖ or ―lesbo‖ or ―homo‖. Worringly – pupils are
making sexual innuendos at a much younger age and often do not see
this as a problem. (Secondary, female, 50-59)
References to homosexuality have increased and appear to be the worst
insult. (Secondary, female, 60+)
LGBT teachers are likely to feel uncomfortable in such an atmosphere even if
their sexual orientation is not known to the pupils.
However LGBT respondents were not more likely to report sexist language than
their heterosexual colleagues. About half the LGBT respondents worked in
situations other than secondary schools, the setting where problems of sexist
behaviour were most frequent. LGBT respondents in settings other than
secondaries did not report problems, but the secondary LGBT respondents did:
Most significantly pupils directed sexist abuse at one another both in and
out of lessons, particularly abusive name calling, inappropriate use of
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 27 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
body language and taunts that are sexual in nature. Have had
inappropriate sexual remarks made towards myself by both genders.
(Secondary, gay female, 29-39, school in serious weaknesses category)
Homophobia is rife within the school I work within. (Secondary, gay male,
29-39)
The gay female teacher, aged 29-39, quoted above had suffered harassment
(this single case accounts for LGBT respondents suffering a rather higher
incidence of harassment than their heterosexual colleagues):
A year 8 [male] pupil has developed a ‗crush‘ and held me inappropriately
– reported to Head of Faculty.
This respondent reported „mixed views‟ on whether the school took her concerns
seriously and whether the outcome was satisfactory, and was one of the few
respondents to fell „not very safe‟ in school.
The gay male secondary teacher, aged 29-39, did not report direct sexual
harassment or assault, but unsurprisingly felt only „fairly safe‟.
These incidents indicate schools are not meeting the requirement (Warwick et al.
2004) to provide effective support for LGBT staff. Unlike their heterosexual
colleagues, who mostly felt „safe‟ or „very safe‟, a majority (4 out of 6) LGBT
respondents felt „fairly safe‟ or „not very safe‟ in their schools.
A majority (4, with one answering „maybe‟ and one abstention) thought security
personnel in school would prevent sexual assaults; only a quarter of heterosexual
staff supported this view. There was no divergence between LGBT respondents
and their heterosexual colleagues about other measures to reduce sexist
language, sexual harassment and sexual assault, nor was there a difference on
views about whether these problems had increased.
However, some LGBT respondents reported they could deal with problems
effectively, suggesting that authority could over-ride any other aspect:
Not unusual to witness boys at secondary schools taunting groups of girls
with ―slag‖….As a school visitor my best power is direct stern looks, the
occasional comment. Never extreme enough to report to the Head.
(Bisexual teacher, centrally employed, 50-59)
27. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Slightly under half the respondents had experienced sexist language, and the
more serious problems were correspondingly rarer.
Only one of the 190 respondents suggested that the questionnaire was
addressing a problem which did not exist:
I do feel this questionnaire is self-fulfilling ie if completed, it suggests there
is significant sexism in our workplace – there is not an option in your
questions to reply with a once a year, once every 5 years answer which is
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 28 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
one to which I could respond. I‘ve completed it, to try & address what
could become a reply from only those with grievances. (Primary, female,
50-59)
For comparison, we can look at two surveys of NUT members which addressed
the problems of violence and unacceptable behaviour in general, without specific
reference to its sexist / sexual aspects.
A small-scale survey of NUT members in London schools in summer 2005 (Neill
2005) showed that 22 out of 50 had encountered a weapon (knife, gun or
improvised weapon) being carried in the last year and that 14 of these had
experienced a weapon being used (though this might be only a pellet gun being
fired in the playground).
Of course, the situation in London is not representative of schools in the country
as a whole; a survey in 2001 (Neill 2001), though now somewhat out-dated, gave
a national coverage similar to the current survey. In that survey 22 per cent
encountered students in possession of an offensive weapon in the last year and
83 per cent had encountered pupil-pupil violence. Pushing or touching had been
experienced by 27 per cent and threats from pupils by 24 per cent; 85 per cent
had experienced offensive language from pupils in the last year. Actual (non-
sexist) assaults on and injuries had happened to 27 per cent of respondents
during their careers; these assaults included being bitten or head-butted by
young children who could not control their tempers. As in the case of sexist
language and sexual harassment, support from senior colleagues was often poor:
41 per cent of those who had been assaulted thought that they had poor or no
support.
This suggests that sexist incidents are a minority of all incidents of unacceptable
pupil behaviour, especially of the more serious incidents.
Around half of all respondents to this survey reported that they had experienced
sexist language or bullying (the figures reported overall and reported for the last
term were closely similar, indicating that, if the problem occurs at all, it occurs
frequently), as opposed to the 85 per cent figure for general offensive language
mentioned in the previous paragraph.
This is consistent with Witkowska & Menckel‟s (2005) ratings by Swedish
secondary female students, who considered bullying, drugs, ethnic harassment,
student drinking, and racial conflicts, in that order, as greater problems in their
schools than sexual harassment, which was seen as a serious problem by
15 per cent and somewhat of a problem by 34 per cent. However, as discussed
below, sexual harassment does share a specifically targeted nature with ethnic
and racial harassment and this is likely to affect responses to it. The fact that
young people themselves in the Swedish study do not identify sexism as the
dominant problem does not mean that it should not be a concern for policy
makers. Sexist attitudes, left unchallenged and even condoned, contribute to
peer violence, gender stereotyping and violence against women such as rape
and domestic violence.
The teachers in this study believed that children in primary schools repeat sexual
terms and sexist language without understanding the meaning. They believed
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 29 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
that young men and women in secondary schools are subjected to sexist
messages and stereotypes from music, families and peers and that this is the
reason why young people are not likely to identify sexist language or sexist
bullying as out of the ordinary or as a matter of concern.
This is supported by the figures for sexist language including cases such as
primary-school children who had stereotypical sexist ideas about gender-
appropriate games; while these may clearly offend a teacher‟s sense of what is
educationally appropriate and desirable, should be challenged (Jennett 2004)
and are a cause for concern in light of the highly gendered subject choices made
by young people, they would not be „offensive‟ language in the disciplinary sense
of the term.
Instead these present an educational opportunity which could be used to develop
the children‟s understanding and to challenge stereotypes in the hope that young
people will make choices which are as open as possible and not constrained by
their gender and by stereotypes about men and women.
The figures in this study suggest that a proportion, perhaps half, of all offensive
language is sexist in nature.
In terms of physical incidents of a sexual nature, the rate of reported assaults of
all types over the course of respondents‟ careers as a whole in the 2001 survey is
much higher than the rate of sexist assaults reported in this survey. The actual
ratio is about 50:1 but one or two more assaults reported in this survey would
radically alter this ratio.
This suggests that the more serious sexual incidents, especially, are a relatively
small proportion of the behaviour problems teachers have to deal with. However
statistical frequency is only part of the situation, and an analogy may be useful.
Motor vehicles cause many more deaths than terrorist activity, and it is likely that
the injuries and trauma caused by road accidents are, on an individual basis, as
crippling as those caused by terrorist incidents. However, it is unlikely to be
politically acceptable to lower the level or precaution against terrorism, on the
basis that it is statistically a low risk to individual citizens.
What is being argued here is that the distress and offence felt by those teachers
who experience sexism and sexual harassment and assault justify rigorous
action, even if the actual risk is agreed to be small. This has clearly been the
case in relation to risks of abuse by adults to children; the expensive apparatus of
CRB checks has been felt to be justified by the over-riding need to protect
children.
Similarly, it is clear that many heterosexual respondents are distressed by the
homophobia apparent in their schools, and that homophobic abuse is widely
perceived as being as unacceptable as racist abuse because it negates an
important part of the recipient‟s identity (Warwick et al. 2004, Jennett 2004).
The open-ended responses indicate that insults to young women teachers are
seen as unacceptably offensive, even if there is no statistical evidence that they
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 30 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
are being selectively targeted, with a sample of this size. A larger sample may
indicate that respondents‟ intuitive judgements are statistically justified.
In both cases specific groups of teachers and pupils, by reason of their sexual
orientation or because they are female, are perceived as being particularly
targeted and this clearly offends many educators‟ commitment to equality of
treatment.
When discussing the predicament of young women, older female respondents
reported that with increasing age and experience they were able to escape from
the effects of harassment, but no similar „escape‟ is available to teachers who are
LGBT or who are perceived to be LGBT teachers.
As pointed out in the discussion of the sample, this questionnaire attracted a
higher proportion of female and young teacher respondents than previous
surveys (Neill 2001, 2005) of unacceptable behaviour and this is best interpreted
as resulting from these groups feeling relatively more concern about sexism and
sexual harassment than the rest of the teacher population.
One of the most interesting findings is that young women felt more targeted, as
reported by both less and more experienced respondents; this is consistent with
Uggen & Blackstone (2004) who found women both objectively reported more
unequivocal types of harassment and were more prone to subjectively label their
experiences as harassment. Uggen & Blackstone considered that, because
harassment is not seen as part of male cultural experience, men did not label
unequivocal experiences (e.g. touching) as harassment, though men with more
egalitarian views were more prone to do so. They also considered harassment as
an expression of power, which is of importance to how institutional hierarchies
relate to harassment, as discussed in the next section.
28. WHAT SHOULD SCHOOLS DO?
Though Lanhout et al. (2005) are properly cautious about applying their findings
outside the military, the findings of this survey do suggest parallels between the
views of Lanhout et al.‟s respondents and the views of respondents to this
survey.
Firstly, as mentioned in the introduction, Lanhout et al. found harassment
reduced victims‟ job satisfaction, organisational commitment and the reported
effectiveness of their work teams. Secondly, types of harassment which might
have been ignored if they were infrequent became distressing if frequency
increased, but some types of harassment, especially more serious or
unambiguous types, were threatening whatever their frequency. Both these
findings are paralleled in this survey. Thirdly the victims found harassment from
superiors much more psychologically distressing.
This survey of NUT members concentrated on harassment from pupils but a
parallel can be drawn with Lanhout at el.‟s findings. As mentioned above, many
respondents did not report incidents to the authorities, often dealing with the
incident themselves. This would be consistent with Lanhout et al.‟s view point that
the relative status of the harasser affects the perception of the harassment;
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 31 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
because of pupils‟ lesser status, some teachers felt able to take control of the
incident.
Here Smirles‟ (2004) study of responses to simulated workplace harassment is
relevant. Smirles gave (university student) respondents a description of an
incident of a senior colleague‟s harassment of a junior colleague; female
respondents and those with progressive attitudes towards women were more
supportive of the victim, regardless of the sex of victim and perpetrator (a
difference confirmed by Bimrose (2004) in respect of real workplace harassment).
However when an account of the victim‟s response was added, this over-rode
these effects; all respondents blamed the perpetrator if the victim assertively
opposed the harassment, but blamed a compliant victim. It is therefore important
that victims are seen to be rejecting attempts at harassment and this justifies
teachers‟ decisions to do so themselves.
However, in many cases the decision not to report to superiors was because of a
perceived lack of sympathy or support from them. In such cases senior staff
could be seen as colluding with the harassers and indeed as harassing by proxy.
This has parallels with the situation in respect to anti-bullying policies for pupils
(which includes sexist and homophobic bullying); despite a legal requirement for
schools to have anti-bullying policies, many pupils do not feel confident of support
from adults, including teachers (Oliver & Candappa 2003). Oliver and Candappa
consider pupils weigh the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action in a
sophisticated way and often feel that assertive action on their own is the most
effective strategy. One reason behind this is that two-thirds of schools, despite
having the statutorily required anti-bullying policy, did not monitor recorded
incidents to assess whether the incidence of bullying was changing (Smith &
Samara 2003). There is a tendency for educational authorities to address
harassment in a problem-solving way rather than providing emotional support
(Bingham & Battey 2005).
There was clearly considerable anger expressed about the lack of support from
senior staff and institutional condoning of sexism or homophobia, this despite the
requirement for all schools to include homophobic bullying in their anti-bullying
policies (Jennett 2004) and the requirement in the DFES anti bullying guidance
„Don‟t Suffer in Silence‟ for schools to explicitly challenge and address sexist
bullying.
Given the evidence that harassment contributes to ill-health and lack of
organisational commitment, even managers who do not consider it a serious
problem in itself need to reflect that harassment is likely to decrease
organisational efficiency and therefore constitutes poor management which is
likely to increase the risk to their organisations at times of inspection.
It seems likely that the most effective way of getting harassment policies
instituted in schools is the sort of professional moral pressure described by Short
(2006) which effected the adoption of anti-peer-harassment policies in the U.S.A.
However Short notes that a national survey of harassment reported by secondary
students in 2000, after the widespread adoption of anti-peer-harassment policies,
showed no decrease in rates from a previous survey by the same investigators in
1992, before the policies were widely adopted, though awareness of the issue
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 32 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
had much increased. Short felt that harassment policies might have the same
effect as workplace anti-discrimination policies; an organisation which has a well-
publicised policy which the victim fails to invoke is protected against legal claims.
Short felt that for policies to have an actual effect, schools needed to stress their
legal grounds rather than presenting them on the basis of fairness and a
hospitable learning environment. Similarly Grube & Lens (2003) felt the informal
school culture and student reluctance to confront issues of harassment would
have to be changed before there was any real effect.
Marshall (2005), discussing the ineffectiveness of written anti-harassment
policies at university level, felt, as did Short, that they were applied in a
managerial way which served to protect the employer‟s interests. She considered
this situation had only been overcome in industry by making the application of
grievance procedures either the responsibility of a neutral ombudsman or
devolving the responsibility to ordinary employees who are aware of what is
happening because they are members of informal workplace networks, and are
therefore often able to solve conflicts informally.
However these suggestions, while appropriate in an adult hierarchy, may only be
applicable in schools where there is effective involvement of all parties, including
students, for example through a school council (Warwick et al. 2004). Both
Warwick et al. and Lahelma (2004) point out that dealing with homophobia and
harassment as a generalised problem may be counterproductive and ineffective.
A particular issue arising from this study is that the responses serve as a
reminder that even within professions which are as female dominated as
teaching, sexism and sexual harassment persist and are deeply entrenched.
Bimrose (2004) considers that it could be unethical for careers guidance
counsellors to advise individuals to enter jobs where there is a particular risk of
harassment. She was primarily thinking of women entering employment sectors
such as construction where there has historically been male dominance and a
high level of harassment. Her view is that the problem needs to be solved at
institutional, not individual level, and until institutions address the problem,
applicants should not be advised to enter risky employment sectors.
Strategies to reduce the sexist and sexual terms used by pupils and levels of
sexist bullying will need to be supported by greater acceptance of the authority of
teachers to deal with unacceptable behaviour of all kinds including sexist
language and harassment.
The proposal to give teachers legal authority to enforce discipline policies in the
current Education and Inspections Bill (House of Lords 2006)) could contribute if
it becomes effective in practice, as should the requirement from April 2007 for
schools to promote gender equality and to develop a gender equality scheme and
action plan (Equality Act 2006).
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 33 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
REFERENCES
Anderson,E. (2006) Recent thinking about sexual harassment: a review essay.
Philosophy & Public Affairs 34/3: 284-311
Bimrose,J. (2004) Sexual harassment in the workplace: an ethical dilemma for career
guidance practice? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32/1, 109-121.
Bingham, S. & Battey, K. (2005) Communication of social support to sexual harassment
victims: Professors' responses to a student's narrative of unwanted sexual attention.
Communication Studies 5/2, 131-155.
Chambers,D., Tincknell,E. & Van Loon,J (2004) Peer regulation of teenage sexual
identities. Gender and Education, 16/3, 397-415.
Equality Act 2006 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2006/ukpga_20060003_en.pdf
Gillander Gådin,K. & Hammarström,A. (2005) A possible contributor to the higher degree
of girls reporting psychological symptoms compared with boys in grade nine? European
Journal of Public Health, 15/4, 380–385
Grube B. & Lens V. (2003) Student-to-Student Harassment: The Impact of Davis v.
Monroe. Children and Schools, 25/3, 173-185.
HMSO (2003a) The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003.
Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 1661. London:HMSO.
HMSO (2003b) The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) (Amendment)
Regulations 2003. Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 2827. London: HMSO.
House of Lords (2006) Education and Inspections Bill. London: House of Lords.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/116/06116.66-69.html#j371c
(accessed 4th. September 2006)
Jennett,M. (2004) Stand Up For Us; Challenging homophobia in schools. London:
Department for Education and Skills / Department for Health.
Lahelma,E. (2004) Tolerance and understanding? students and teachers
reflect on differences at school. Educational Research and Evaluation 10/1, 3–19
Langhout,R.D,. Bergman,M.E., Cortina,L.M., Fitzgerald,L.F., Drasgow,F. & Hunter
Williams,J. (2005) Sexual harassment severity: assessing situational and personal
determinants and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35/5, 975-1007.
Marshall,A-M. (2005) Idle rights: employees‟ rights consciousness and the construction
of sexual harassment policies. Law & Society Review, 39/1, 83-123.
Neill,S.R.St.J. (2001) Unacceptable Pupil Behaviour. London: National Union of
Teachers.
Neill,S.R.St.J. (2005) Knives and other weapons in London schools. International
Journal of School Disaffection, 3/2: 27-32.
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 34 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Nishina,A. & Juvonen,J. (2005) Daily Reports of Witnessing and Experiencing Peer
Harassment in Middle School. Child Development 76/2, 435–450.
Oliver,C. & Candappa,M. (2003) Tackling Bullying: listening to the views of children and
young people. London: Department for Education & Science.
Robinson,K.H. 2005 Reinforcing hegemonic masculinities through sexual harassment:
issues of identity, power and popularity in secondary schools. Gender and Education.
17/1, 19–37.
Rospenda,K., Richman,J., Ehmke,J., & Zlatoper,K. (2005) Is workplace harassment
hazardous to your health? : Journal of Business and Psychology, 20/1, 95-110.
Short,J.L. (2006) Creating peer sexual harassment: mobilizing schools to throw the book
at themselves. Law & Policy, 28/1, 31-59.
Smirles,K.E. (2004) Attributions of responsibility in cases of sexual harassment: the
person and the situation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34/2, 342-365.
Smith,P. & Samara,M. (2003) Evaluation of the DfES anti-bullying pack. Research Brief
RBX06-03. London: Department for Education & Science.
Timmerman,G. (2005) A comparison between girls‟ and boys‟ experiences of unwanted
sexual behaviour in secondary schools. Educational Research, 47/3, 291 – 306
Troop-Gordon,W. & Ladd,G.W. (2005) Trajectories of peer victimization and perceptions
of the self and schoolmates: precursors to internalizing and externalizing problems. Child
Development, 76/5: 1072 – 1091
Uggen,C. & Blackstone,A. (2004) Sexual harassment as a gendered expression of
power. American Sociological Review 69/2: 64-92
Warwick,I., Chase,E., Aggleton,P. & Sanders,S. (2004) Homophobia, Sexual Orientation
and Schools: a Review and Implications for Action. Research Report RR594. London:
Department for Education and Skills.
Williams,T., Connolly,J., Pepler,D,. & Craig,W. (2005) Peer victimization, social support,
and psychosocial adjustment of sexual minority adolescents. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 34/5, 471-482.
Witkowska,E. & Menckel,E. (2005) Perceptions of sexual harassment in Swedish high
schools: experiences and school environment problems. European Journal of Public
Health, 15/1, 78–85
Wyss,S.E. (2004) „This was my hell‟: the violence experienced by gender non-
conforming youth in US high schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 17/ 5, 709-730.
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 35 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
APPENDIX I
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS
SURVEY ON THE EXPERIENCES OF TEACHERS OF SEXISM,
SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL ASSAULT WITHIN
SCHOOLS/COLLEGES
April 2006
Dear Colleague
Please find enclosed a survey on the experiences of teachers of sexism, sexual
harassment and sexual assaults in schools and colleges.
Incidents of sexism, sexual harassment and even sexual assault by pupils can be
serious issues for teachers. By completing this survey, with a guarantee of complete
confidence, you will help the Union build a comprehensive picture of the frequency and
nature of such incidents. This will inform the Union in its development of policies. It will
help us prepare guidance to members and to enhance arrangements to protect
members.
This survey is being sent to a statistically significant sample of NUT members across all
settings and services in which NUT members are employed. We need responses from
all members irrespective of gender. It is completely confidential and all responses to the
survey will be treated in the strictest of confidence.
Please complete and return the survey answering all the questions for which you have
experience or information.
Yours sincerely
STEVE SINNOTT
General Secretary
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 36 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Section A: ABOUT YOU – please tick appropriate box.
1. AGE: 21-28 29-39 40-49 50-59 60+
2. GENDER: M F Trans
3. SEXUAL Heterosexual Gay Bisexual
ORIENTATION:
Lesbian
4. EMPLOYMENT: Full-time Part-time Supply
5. LENGTH OF Less than 3 years 3-6 years 7-9 years
SERVICE:
10-15 years 16-25 years 26 years or more
6. YOUR POST: Head teacher
Deputy head teacher
Assistant head teacher
Teacher with TLR payment/management points
Teacher with upper scale
Teacher on main scale
Class teacher
NUT representative
7. PHASE: Under 5s Primary/Middle
Secondary Pupil Referral Units
Special LEA centrally employed teacher
Sixth Form College
(e.g. SEN advisory teacher, traveller education
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 37 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Section B: ABOUT YOUR SCHOOL/COLLEGE
8. NAME OF LOCAL AUTHORITY:
9. TYPE OF Voluntary Aided Foundation School
SCHOOL/
Voluntary Controlled Community School
COLLEGE:
Academy Independent School
City Technical College Sixth Form College
Faith School
10. GENDER OF Co-Educational Boys Only
PUPILS:
Girls Only
11. PUPIL PROFILE % of pupils on Special Educational Needs register:
OF SCHOOL/
% of pupils eligible for free school meals:
COLLEGE:
12. IS YOUR
In special measures?
SCHOOL/
COLLEGE: Under a notice to improve?
In the serious weaknesses category?
Definitions of sexist language, sexual harassment and sexual assault can be found at the
back of this document.
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 38 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
13. Have you ever witnessed or experienced sexist language or sexist bullying by pupils
whilst carrying out your employment? You may find the definitions of sexist language
and sexist bullying on page 12 useful.
Yes No
(go to question 14) (go to question 27)
14. How often do you hear sexist language used by pupils directed at staff?
Once a term Once a month
Once a week Every lesson
Several times a week Every day
15. How often do you hear sexist language used by pupils directed at each other?
Once a term Once a month
Once a week Every lesson
Several times a week Every day
16. How often do you witness sexist bullying by pupils towards other pupils?
Once a term Once a month
Once a week Every lesson
Several times a week Every day
17. How many times has sexist language been directed at you by pupils in the last twelve
months?
Once a term Once a month
Once a week Every lesson
Several times a week Every day
From the experiences listed above, if you have identified one or more as applying to you,
please use the space below to briefly describe the most significant incident.
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 39 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
18. Where did this incident happen?
Classroom Staffroom
Toilets Corridors
School/college fields Dinner hall/Canteen
Playground Travelling to/from work
Car Park Immediately outside school/college premises
Laboratory Waiting or arrival area for school buses
Workshop Gymnasium or changing room
Other:
19. Was the pupil male or female?
Male Female
20. Did you report this incident?
Yes No
(go to question 21) (go to question 26)
21. If you reported this incident how was your report addressed? Please tick all
applicable.
No action taken
School/college logged the incident
Follow up action taken with pupil/colleague
Whole school/college policies evaluated and/or developed
Parents of pupil were contacted
Other: (Please explain)
22. Was the outcome satisfactory?
Very Fairly
Mixed views Not very
Not at all
23. Did you feel that the school/college took your concerns seriously?
Very Fairly
Mixed views Not very
Not at all
24. Did you raise the matter as a grievance?
Yes No
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 40 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
25. If the outcome was un-satisfactory, what more do you think could and should have
been done?
Incidents should be recorded in incident book
Disciplinary process invoked in respect of staff
Sexual content within verbal abuse should be recognised and challenged
School should explore sexism and sexual bullying through the Curriculum
School should refer to sexism explicitly in anti-bullying policies
School behaviour policy should have been pursued including consideration
of suspension or exclusion
Other: (Please give suggestions)
26. If you did not report this incident, please tell us why not. Please tick all applicable
Fear of being ridiculed or trivialised
Lack of confidence in line manager or SMT to investigate or take action
School/college takes no action to confront sexist language
Too busy to report it
My professional judgement was that the incident did not need to be reported
My professional judgement was to deal with the incident directly
e.g. speak to the pupil/colleague
Other: (Please explain)
27. Have you ever experienced sexual harassment by a pupil whilst carrying out your
employment?
You may find the definition of sexual harassment on page 12 useful.
Yes No
(go to question 28 ) (go to question 38)
28. How many times have you experienced sexual harassment by pupils within the last
twelve months?
Once in 12 months At least twice
3-5 times More than 5 times
Once a week Every day
Please tell us more about this incident or the most significant of these incidents. If you can
recall more than one example, please tell us about the most recent or most significant
incident.
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 41 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
29. Where did this incident happen?
Classroom Staffroom
Toilets Corridors
School/college fields Dinner hall/Canteen
Playground Travelling to/from work
Car Park Immediately outside school/college premises
Laboratory Waiting or arrival area for school buses
Workshop Gymnasium or changing room
Other:
30. Was the pupil male or female?
Male Female
31. Did you report this incident?
Yes No
(go to question 32) (go to question 37)
32. If you reported this incident how was your report addressed? Please tick all
applicable.
No action taken
School/college logged the incident
Investigation by head teacher/SMT
Follow up action taken with pupil
Whole school/college policies evaluated and/or developed
Parents of pupil were contacted
Other:
33. Was the outcome satisfactory?
Very Fairly
Mixed views Not very
Not at all
34. Did you feel that the school/college took your concerns seriously?
Very Fairly
Mixed views Not very
Not at all
35. Did you raise the matter as a grievance?
Yes No
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 42 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
36. If the outcome was unsatisfactory, what more do you think could and should have
been done?
Incidents should be reported in incident book
Disciplinary process invoked
Sexual content within sexist harassment should
be actively recognised and challenged
School should explore sexism and sexual harassment through the curriculum
School should refer explicitly to sexual harassment
in bullying and harassment policies
School behaviour policy should have been pursued including
consideration of exclusion
Other: (Please give suggestions)
37. If you did not report the incident, please tell us why not. Please tick all applicable
Fear of being ridiculed or trivialised
Feeling embarrassed or uncomfortable discussing the issue
Lack of confidence in line manager or SMT to investigate or take action
School/college takes no action to reduce sexual harassment
Too busy to report it
My professional judgement was that the incident did not need to reported
My professional judgement was to deal with the incident directly
e.g.speak to the pupil involved
Other: (Please explain)
38. Have you ever been threatened with sexual assault by a pupil? You may find the
definition of sexual assault on page 12 useful.
Yes No
(go to question 39) (go to question 49)
39. How many times have you experienced such threats from a pupil within the last
twelve months?
Once At least twice
More than twice
Please tell us more about this incident/one of these incidents. If you can recall more than
one example, please tell us about the most recent or most significant incident.
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 43 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
40. Where did this incident happen?
Classroom Staffroom
Toilets Corridors
School/college fields Dinner hall/Canteen
Playground Travelling to/from work
Car Park Immediately outside school/college premises
Laboratory Waiting or arrival area for school buses
Workshop Gymnasium or changing room
Other: ______________________________________________________________
41. Was the pupil male or female?
Male Female
42. Did you report this incident?
Yes No
(go to question 43) (go to question 48)
43. If you reported this incident how was your report addressed? Please tick all
applicable
No action taken
School/college logged the incident
Investigation by head teacher /SMT
Follow up action taken with pupil
Whole school/college policies evaluated and/or developed
Parents of pupil were contacted
Other: (Please explain)
44. Was the outcome satisfactory?
Very Fairly
Mixed views Not very
Not at all
45. Did you feel that the school/college took your concerns seriously?
Very Fairly
Mixed views Not very
Not at all
46. Did you raise the matter as a grievance?
Yes No
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 44 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
47. If the outcome was unsatisfactory, what more do you think could and should have
been done?
Incidents should be recorded in incident book
Disciplinary process invoked in respect of staff
Sexual content within verbal abuse should be recognised and challenged
School should explore sexism and sexual bullying through the Curriculum
School should refer to sexism explicitly in anti-bullying policies
School behaviour policy should have been pursued including
consideration of exclusion
Other: (Please give suggestions)
48. If you did not report the incident, please tell us why not. Please tick all applicable
Fear of being ridiculed or trivialised
Feeling embarrassed or uncomfortable discussing the issue
Lack of confidence in line manager or SMT to investigate or take action
School/college takes no action to reduce sexual harassment
My professional judgement was that the incident did not need to be reported
My professional judgement was to deal with the incident directly
e.g. to speak to the pupil involved
Other: (Please explain)
49. Have you ever experienced an actual sexual assault whilst in the course of
your employment? Please see the definitions on page 12
Yes No
(go to question 50) (go to question 51)
50. Please tell us as much as you wish to about this incident.
51. How safe do you feel in and around your school/college?
Very safe Safe
Fairly safe Not very safe
Not safe at all
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 45 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
52. If you have taught for over 10 years or more, do you feel:
More safe than ten years ago working in school/college
Less safe than ten years ago working in school/college
53. Do you think the following measures would reduce sexist language in schools
and colleges?
Yes No Maybe Don‟t
know
Strategies to recognise and challenge sexual content
within verbal abuse
Use single sex groupings to explore sensitive issues
Strategic leadership from the SMT
Record incidents in incident book
Refer to it explicitly in anti-bullying policies and
harassment policies
Training for school governors and SMT on
understanding of sexism and gender equality
Inset on gender equality and suitable strategies
Please tell us about other measures you feel would reduce sexist language in schools and
colleges.
54. Do you think the following measures would reduce sexual harassment of
teachers in schools and colleges?
Yes No Maybe Don‟t
know
Strategies to recognise and challenge sexual content
within verbal abuse
Use single sex groupings to explore sensitive issues
Strategic leadership from the SMT
Record incidents in incident book
Refer to it explicitly in anti-bullying policies and
harassment policies
Training for school governors and SMT on
understanding of sexism and gender equality
Inset on gender equality and suitable strategies
Please tell us about other measures you feel would reduce the sexual harassment of
teachers/pupils in schools/colleges.
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 46 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
55. Do you think the following measures would prevent sexual assaults in schools
and colleges?
Yes No Maybe Don‟t know
Panic Buttons/Alarms
Strategic Leadership from the SMT
Whole school/college curriculum policy on sexism
and promoting gender equality
Prevention education within PSHE or citizenship
about all forms of violence against women.
Security Personnel
Please inform us of other measures you feel would prevent sexual assaults in
schools/colleges.
56. Does your school/college have a whole school equal opportunities policy?
Yes No Don‟t know
57. Does your school/college have a pupil behaviour policy which covers sexual
harassment and sexist bullying?
Yes No Don‟t know
58. Does your school/college have a workplace harassment and bullying policy
which covers sexual harassment and sexist bullying?
Yes No Don‟t know
59. If your length of service has been seven years or more, do you believe that
incidents of sexist language from pupils have increased since you started
teaching?
Yes No Don‟t know
60. If your length of service has been seven years or more, do you believe that
incidents of sexual harassment by pupils have increased since you started
teaching?
Yes No Don‟t know
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 47 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
61. Please feel free to add any more comments in the space provided. In particular,
please provide us with examples of sexist words/language which pupils/colleagues
use, or sexist stereotypes which you hear used within your school/college. Use
asterisks if you prefer.
Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey.
Please return the survey by Friday 5th May 2006.
Definitions
Sexist Language is language which promotes the stereotyping of people on the basis of
gender. Sexist language means words and phrases which can reflect or reinforce prejudice
against men or women, thus perpetuating discriminatory attitudes and prejudice or language
which can patronise or trivialise. Sexism is often unconscious because sexism in language
is so prevalent that we may be completely unaware that language use is biased. Sexism
means discrimination based on gender and attitudes, conditions, or behaviours that promote
stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
Sexist Bullying is defined by the DFES as follows:
“Sexual bullying impacts on both genders. Boys are also victims – of girls and other boys.
In general, sexual bullying is characterised by:
Abusive name calling
Looks and comments about appearance, attractiveness, emerging puberty
Inappropriate and uninvited touching
Sexual innuendoes and propositions
Pornographic material, graffiti with sexual content
In its most extreme form, sexual assault or rape”
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 48 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Sexual Harassment is defined in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
For the purposes of the SDA 1975, a person subjects a woman/man to harassment if:
(a) on the ground of his/her sex, he/she engages in unwanted conduct that has the
purpose or effect:
(i) of violating his/her dignity, or
(ii) of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive
environment for him/her
(b) he/she engages in any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a
sexual nature that has the purpose or effect:
(i) of violating his/her dignity, or
(ii) of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive
environment for him/her, or
(c) on the ground of his/her rejection of, or submission to, unwanted conduct of a kind
mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b), he or she treats that person less favourably than
he/she would treat that person had he or she not rejected, or submitted to, the
conduct.
Sexual harassment covers situations where the unwanted conduct is sexual in nature – e.g.
making unwelcome sexually explicit comments. This is unwanted conduct not necessarily
related to a person‟s sex but is of a “sexual nature”. Conduct which has the effect of
creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for
someone, can be harassment, even if creating that kind of environment was not the intention
behind the conduct.
There are many different situations that could be construed as sexual harassment.
Individual men and women will have differing opinions of what they regard as such
behaviour (for instance, when horseplay becomes harassment, or photographs are
offensive) but either a serious “one-off” occurrence or an accumulation of incidents can be
harassment.
The sexual harassment of men is made equally unlawful by The Sex Discrimination Act as
the harassment of women.
Sexual Assault in this survey includes serious sexual assaults including actual or
threatened penetration of the body without consent including but not only rape. It also
includes actual or threatened touching, or flashing or other sexual threats that cause fear,
alarm or distress.
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 49 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
APPENDIX II
THE SAMPLE AND THEIR SCHOOLS
Notes In the tables, the „Frequency‟ column gives the actual numbers, „Percent‟ is of
the whole sample, and „Valid Percent‟ and „Cumulative Percent‟ apply only to those who
answered the question; „Missing‟ respondents were unable to answer the question (e.g.
many respondents did not know the percentage on the SEN register)
Age
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 21-28 40 21.2 21.4 21.4
29-39 51 27.0 27.3 48.7
40-49 39 20.6 20.9 69.5
50-59 51 27.0 27.3 96.8
60+ 6 3.2 3.2 100.0
Total 187 98.9 100.0
Mis sing System 2 1.1
Total 189 100.0
Gender
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Male 33 17.5 17.6 17.6
Female 154 81.5 82.4 100.0
Total 187 98.9 100.0
Mis sing System 2 1.1
Total 189 100.0
Sexual orie ntation
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid Heteros exual 180 95.2 96.8 96.8
Gay 4 2.1 2.2 98.9
Bisexual 1 .5 .5 99.5
Lesbian 1 .5 .5 100.0
Total 186 98.4 100.0
Mis sing System 3 1.6
Total 189 100.0
Em ploym ent
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Full-time 150 79.4 80.2 80.2
Part-time 31 16.4 16.6 96.8
Supply 6 3.2 3.2 100.0
Total 187 98.9 100.0
Mis sing System 2 1.1
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 50 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Length of s ervice
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid less than 3 years 37 19.6 19.7 19.7
3-6 y ears 23 12.2 12.2 31.9
7-9 y ears 26 13.8 13.8 45.7
10-15 y ears 33 17.5 17.6 63.3
16-25 y ears 37 19.6 19.7 83.0
26 y ears or above 32 16.9 17.0 100.0
Total 188 99.5 100.0
Mis sing System 1 .5
Total 189 100.0
Pos t
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Head teacher 3 1.6 1.6 1.6
Deputy head 7 3.7 3.7 5.3
Ass istant head 2 1.1 1.1 6.4
TLR payment /
71 37.6 38.0 44.4
management points
On upper sc ale 28 14.8 15.0 59.4
On main scale 70 37.0 37.4 96.8
NUT repres entative 6 3.2 3.2 100.0
Total 187 98.9 100.0
Mis sing System 2 1.1
Total 189 100.0
Phase
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Under 5s 9 4.8 4.8 4.8
Primary / middle 88 46.6 46.6 51.3
Secondary 79 41.8 41.8 93.1
Sixth Form College 10 5.3 5.3 98.4
PRU 1 .5 .5 98.9
Spec ial 1 .5 .5 99.5
LEA c entrally employed 1 .5 .5 100.0
Total 189 100.0 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 51 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Type of s chool
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid V oluntary aided 40 21.2 24.7 24.7
V oluntary c ontrolled 5 2.6 3.1 27.8
A cademy 1 .5 .6 28.4
CTC 10 5.3 6.2 34.6
Faith School 9 4.8 5.6 40.1
Foundation Sc hool 7 3.7 4.3 44.4
Community Sc hool 80 42.3 49.4 93.8
Independent School 3 1.6 1.9 95.7
Sixth Form College 7 3.7 4.3 100.0
Total 162 85.7 100.0
Mis sing System 27 14.3
Total 189 100.0
Gender of pupils
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid Co-educational 175 92.6 94.1 94.1
Boys only 6 3.2 3.2 97.3
Girls only 5 2.6 2.7 100.0
Total 186 98.4 100.0
Mis sing System 3 1.6
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 52 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Percentage on SEN r egis te r
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid .04 1 .5 1.1 1.1
2.00 2 1.1 2.2 3.2
3.00 3 1.6 3.2 6.5
3.30 1 .5 1.1 7.5
4.00 2 1.1 2.2 9.7
5.00 6 3.2 6.5 16.1
6.00 3 1.6 3.2 19.4
7.00 1 .5 1.1 20.4
8.00 4 2.1 4.3 24.7
8.90 1 .5 1.1 25.8
9.00 1 .5 1.1 26.9
10.00 11 5.8 11.8 38.7
12.00 1 .5 1.1 39.8
14.00 1 .5 1.1 40.9
15.00 5 2.6 5.4 46.2
16.50 1 .5 1.1 47.3
17.00 1 .5 1.1 48.4
18.00 2 1.1 2.2 50.5
19.00 1 .5 1.1 51.6
20.00 13 6.9 14.0 65.6
23.00 1 .5 1.1 66.7
25.00 5 2.6 5.4 72.0
26.00 2 1.1 2.2 74.2
27.00 1 .5 1.1 75.3
30.00 3 1.6 3.2 78.5
31.00 1 .5 1.1 79.6
33.00 1 .5 1.1 80.6
35.00 2 1.1 2.2 82.8
38.00 1 .5 1.1 83.9
40.00 6 3.2 6.5 90.3
50.00 1 .5 1.1 91.4
53.00 1 .5 1.1 92.5
55.00 1 .5 1.1 93.5
60.00 3 1.6 3.2 96.8
63.00 1 .5 1.1 97.8
100.00 2 1.1 2.2 100.0
Total 93 49.2 100.0
Mis sing System 96 50.8
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 53 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Percentage e ligible for FSM
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid .00 3 1.6 3.8 3.8
.01 1 .5 1.3 5.0
.03 1 .5 1.3 6.3
1.00 3 1.6 3.8 10.0
2.00 3 1.6 3.8 13.8
3.00 2 1.1 2.5 16.3
4.00 3 1.6 3.8 20.0
5.00 3 1.6 3.8 23.8
6.70 1 .5 1.3 25.0
8.00 1 .5 1.3 26.3
9.00 1 .5 1.3 27.5
10.00 4 2.1 5.0 32.5
11.00 1 .5 1.3 33.8
12.00 1 .5 1.3 35.0
13.00 1 .5 1.3 36.3
15.00 6 3.2 7.5 43.8
18.00 2 1.1 2.5 46.3
20.00 2 1.1 2.5 48.8
21.00 1 .5 1.3 50.0
25.00 3 1.6 3.8 53.8
26.00 1 .5 1.3 55.0
30.00 4 2.1 5.0 60.0
31.00 1 .5 1.3 61.3
33.00 3 1.6 3.8 65.0
34.00 1 .5 1.3 66.3
37.00 1 .5 1.3 67.5
40.00 4 2.1 5.0 72.5
42.00 1 .5 1.3 73.8
45.00 2 1.1 2.5 76.3
47.00 2 1.1 2.5 78.8
48.00 1 .5 1.3 80.0
50.00 3 1.6 3.8 83.8
52.00 1 .5 1.3 85.0
53.00 1 .5 1.3 86.3
55.00 1 .5 1.3 87.5
59.00 1 .5 1.3 88.8
60.00 2 1.1 2.5 91.3
65.00 1 .5 1.3 92.5
70.00 4 2.1 5.0 97.5
75.00 1 .5 1.3 98.8
78.00 1 .5 1.3 100.0
Total 80 42.3 100.0
Mis sing System 109 57.7
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 54 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Is s chool in s pe cial m e as ures ?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 184 97.4 99.5 99.5
Yes 1 .5 .5 100.0
Total 185 97.9 100.0
Mis sing System 4 2.1
Total 189 100.0
Is s chool unde r notice to im prove ?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 181 95.8 97.8 97.8
Yes 4 2.1 2.2 100.0
Total 185 97.9 100.0
Mis sing System 4 2.1
Total 189 100.0
Is s chool in s er ious w e ak ne s se s category?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 183 96.8 98.9 98.9
Yes 2 1.1 1.1 100.0
Total 185 97.9 100.0
Mis sing System 4 2.1
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 55 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
APPENDIX III
SEXIST LANGUAGE AND BULLYING
Notes In the tables, the „Frequency‟ column gives the actual numbers, „Percent‟ is of the
whole sample, and „Valid Percent‟ and „Cumulative Percent‟ apply only to those who
answered the question; „Missing‟ respondents did not answer the question, for example
because they had not experienced the behaviour in question. Questions answered by
only a small proportion of respondents (e.g. how schools responded to incidents) are
reported in the text.
Sexis t language / bullying by pupils
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 96 50.8 50.8 50.8
Yes 93 49.2 49.2 100.0
Total 189 100.0 100.0
Sexis t language by pupils to s taff
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Onc e a term 36 19.0 48.6 48.6
Onc e a month 15 7.9 20.3 68.9
Onc e a w eek 7 3.7 9.5 78.4
Several times a w eek 11 5.8 14.9 93.2
Ev ery day 5 2.6 6.8 100.0
Total 74 39.2 100.0
Mis sing System 115 60.8
Total 189 100.0
Sexis t langage by pupils to pupils
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Onc e a term 16 8.5 17.6 17.6
Onc e a month 13 6.9 14.3 31.9
Onc e a w eek 24 12.7 26.4 58.2
Several times a w eek 17 9.0 18.7 76.9
Ev ery day 21 11.1 23.1 100.0
Total 91 48.1 100.0
Mis sing System 98 51.9
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 56 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Sexis t bullying by pupils to pupils
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Onc e a term 27 14.3 37.5 37.5
Onc e a month 14 7.4 19.4 56.9
Onc e a w eek 12 6.3 16.7 73.6
Several times a w eek 9 4.8 12.5 86.1
Ev ery day 10 5.3 13.9 100.0
Total 72 38.1 100.0
Mis sing System 117 61.9
Total 189 100.0
Sexis t language by pupils to re s ponde nt
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Onc e a term 24 12.7 60.0 60.0
Onc e a month 7 3.7 17.5 77.5
Onc e a w eek 4 2.1 10.0 87.5
Several times a w eek 4 2.1 10.0 97.5
Ev ery day 1 .5 2.5 100.0
Total 40 21.2 100.0
Mis sing System 149 78.8
Total 189 100.0
Location of se xis t language / bullying incide nt
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Clas sroom 32 16.9 53.3 53.3
Play ground 9 4.8 15.0 68.3
Laboratory 1 .5 1.7 70.0
Corridors 14 7.4 23.3 93.3
Dinner hall / canteen 1 .5 1.7 95.0
Immediately outside
2 1.1 3.3 98.3
sc hool
Other 1 .5 1.7 100.0
Total 60 31.7 100.0
Mis sing System 129 68.3
Total 189 100.0
Was pupil involve d in s exist language / bullying..?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Female 7 3.7 11.5 11.5
Male 53 28.0 86.9 98.4
Both sexes 1 .5 1.6 100.0
Total 61 32.3 100.0
Mis sing System 128 67.7
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 57 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Did you re port the incide nt of se xist language / bullying?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 36 19.0 60.0 60.0
Yes 24 12.7 40.0 100.0
Total 60 31.7 100.0
Mis sing System 129 68.3
Total 189 100.0
Was outcom e of action about s exis t language / bullying s atis factory?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Not at all 4 2.1 15.4 15.4
Not v ery 2 1.1 7.7 23.1
Mix ed view s 6 3.2 23.1 46.2
Fairly 9 4.8 34.6 80.8
Very 5 2.6 19.2 100.0
Total 26 13.8 100.0
Mis sing System 163 86.2
Total 189 100.0
How s er ious ly w e re conce rns about s e xist language / bullying tak en?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Not at all 5 2.6 19.2 19.2
Not v ery 3 1.6 11.5 30.8
Mix ed view s 3 1.6 11.5 42.3
Fairly 3 1.6 11.5 53.8
Very 12 6.3 46.2 100.0
Total 26 13.8 100.0
Mis sing System 163 86.2
Total 189 100.0
Was incide nt of s exis t language / bulling r aise d as a grie vance?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 25 13.2 89.3 89.3
Yes 3 1.6 10.7 100.0
Total 28 14.8 100.0
Mis sing System 161 85.2
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 58 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
APPENDIX IV
SEXUAL HARRASSMENT
Notes In the tables, the „Frequency‟ column gives the actual numbers, „Percent‟ is of the
whole sample, and „Valid Percent‟ and „Cumulative Percent‟ apply only to those who
answered the question; „Missing‟ respondents did not answer the question, for example
because they had not experienced the behaviour in question. Questions answered by
only a small proportion of respondents (e.g. how schools responded to incidents) are
reported in the text.
Sexual harrass m e nt by a pupil w hile carr ying out e m ploym e nt
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 167 88.4 88.4 88.4
Yes 22 11.6 11.6 100.0
Total 189 100.0 100.0
Fr eque ncy of s exual harass m e nt in the las t tw elve m onths
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Onc e in 12 months 7 3.7 41.2 41.2
At leas t tw ice 3 1.6 17.6 58.8
3-5 times 1 .5 5.9 64.7
More than 5 times 5 2.6 29.4 94.1
Ev ery day 1 .5 5.9 100.0
Total 17 9.0 100.0
Mis sing System 172 91.0
Total 189 100.0
Location of se xual haras sm e nt
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Clas sroom 11 5.8 55.0 55.0
Sports f ields 1 .5 5.0 60.0
Corridors 6 3.2 30.0 90.0
Dinner hall / canteen 2 1.1 10.0 100.0
Total 20 10.6 100.0
Mis sing System 169 89.4
Total 189 100.0
Was pupil involve d in s e xual har as sm ent...?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Female 1 .5 5.0 5.0
Male 19 10.1 95.0 100.0
Total 20 10.6 100.0
Mis sing System 169 89.4
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 59 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Did you re port the incide nt of se xual haras sm ent?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 12 6.3 60.0 60.0
Yes 8 4.2 40.0 100.0
Total 20 10.6 100.0
Mis sing System 169 89.4
Total 189 100.0
Was outcom e of action about s exual haras s m e nt satis factory?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid Not at all 4 2.1 50.0 50.0
Mix ed view s 4 2.1 50.0 100.0
Total 8 4.2 100.0
Mis sing System 181 95.8
Total 189 100.0
How s er ious ly w e re conce rns about s e xual harass m e nt take n?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid Not at all 4 2.1 50.0 50.0
Mix ed view s 3 1.6 37.5 87.5
Fairly 1 .5 12.5 100.0
Total 8 4.2 100.0
Mis sing System 181 95.8
Total 189 100.0
Was incide nt of s exual harass m e nt rais e d as a grie vance ?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 8 4.2 100.0 100.0
Mis sing System 181 95.8
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 60 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
APPENDIX V
THREAT OF SEXUAL ASSAULT
Notes In the tables, the „Frequency‟ column gives the actual numbers, „Percent‟ is of the
whole sample, and „Valid Percent‟ and „Cumulative Percent‟ apply only to those who
answered the question; „Missing‟ respondents did not answer the question, for example
because they had not experienced the behaviour in question. Questions answered by
only a small proportion of respondents (e.g. how schools responded to incidents) are
reported in the text.
Thre at of s exual ass ault by a pupil
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 187 98.9 98.9 98.9
Yes 2 1.1 1.1 100.0
Total 189 100.0 100.0
Fr eque ncy of thre at of se xual as sault in the last tw e lve m onths
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Onc e 2 1.1 100.0 100.0
Mis sing System 187 98.9
Total 189 100.0
Location of thre at of s exual ass ault
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Corridors 1 .5 50.0 50.0
Immediately
1 .5 50.0 100.0
outs ide sc hool
Total 2 1.1 100.0
Mis sing System 187 98.9
Total 189 100.0
Was pupil involve d in threat of se xual as sault...?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Male 1 .5 100.0 100.0
Mis sing System 188 99.5
Total 189 100.0
Did you re port the incide nt of thre at of s exual as s ault?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 1 .5 100.0 100.0
Mis sing System 188 99.5
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 61 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
APPENDIX VI
ACTUAL SEXUAL ASSAULT AND SAFETY
Notes In the tables, the „Frequency‟ column gives the actual numbers, „Percent‟ is of the
whole sample, and „Valid Percent‟ and „Cumulative Percent‟ apply only to those who
answered the question; „Missing‟ respondents did not answer the question, for example
because they had not been teaching for ten years.
Actual se xual ass ault w hile in course of em ploym ent
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 188 99.5 99.5 99.5
Yes 1 .5 .5 100.0
Total 189 100.0 100.0
Fe e lings about s afe ty in and around s chool / colle ge
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid V ery s af e 83 43.9 45.4 45.4
Saf e 45 23.8 24.6 69.9
Fairly saf e 51 27.0 27.9 97.8
Not v ery s af e 4 2.1 2.2 100.0
Total 183 96.8 100.0
Mis sing System 6 3.2
Total 189 100.0
Fe lt s afe ty about w orkplace com par ed to 10+ ye ars ago
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid More s af e 39 20.6 45.9 45.9
Less s af e 46 24.3 54.1 100.0
Total 85 45.0 100.0
Mis sing System 104 55.0
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 62 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
APPENDIX VII
STRATEGIES TO REDUCE SEXIST LANGUAGE, SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND
ASSAULT
Notes In the tables, the „Frequency‟ column gives the actual numbers, „Percent‟ is of the
whole sample, and „Valid Percent‟ and „Cumulative Percent‟ apply only to those who
answered the question; „Missing‟ respondents did not answer the question.
Strate gie s to challenge s exis t ver bal abuse w ould re duce se xis t language
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid No 4 2.1 2.6 2.6
May be 37 19.6 24.2 26.8
Y es 112 59.3 73.2 100.0
Total 153 81.0 100.0
Mis sing System 36 19.0
Total 189 100.0
Single -se x groupings to e xplore s e ns itive iss ue s w ould re duce se xist
language
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 28 14.8 17.3 17.3
May be 62 32.8 38.3 55.6
Yes 72 38.1 44.4 100.0
Total 162 85.7 100.0
Mis sing System 27 14.3
Total 189 100.0
Strate gic leade rs hip from SMT w ould re duce se xis t language
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid No 9 4.8 5.4 5.4
May be 43 22.8 25.6 31.0
Y es 116 61.4 69.0 100.0
Total 168 88.9 100.0
Mis sing System 21 11.1
Total 189 100.0
Recording incidents in an incident book w ould re duce se xis t language
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid No 27 14.3 15.6 15.6
May be 43 22.8 24.9 40.5
Y es 103 54.5 59.5 100.0
Total 173 91.5 100.0
Mis sing System 16 8.5
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 63 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Anti-bullying policie s re fer ring e xplicitly w ould se xis t language
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid No 7 3.7 4.1 4.1
May be 39 20.6 22.9 27.1
Y es 124 65.6 72.9 100.0
Total 170 89.9 100.0
Mis sing System 19 10.1
Total 189 100.0
Sexis m / ge nde r e quality training for gove rnor s / SMT w ould re duce se xis t
language
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid No 11 5.8 6.4 6.4
May be 49 25.9 28.7 35.1
Y es 111 58.7 64.9 100.0
Total 171 90.5 100.0
Mis sing System 18 9.5
Total 189 100.0
INSET on ge nde r e quality w ould reduce s exist language
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid No 12 6.3 7.4 7.4
May be 52 27.5 31.9 39.3
Y es 99 52.4 60.7 100.0
Total 163 86.2 100.0
Mis sing System 26 13.8
Total 189 100.0
Othe r m e as ures w ould re duce se xis t language
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Yes 34 18.0 100.0 100.0
Mis sing System 155 82.0
Total 189 100.0
Strate gie s to challenge s exis t ver bal abuse w ould re duce se xual
harass m e nt
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 3 1.6 1.9 1.9
May be 42 22.2 26.8 28.7
Yes 112 59.3 71.3 100.0
Total 157 83.1 100.0
Mis sing System 32 16.9
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 64 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Single -se x groupings to e xplore s e ns itive iss ue s w ould re duce se xual
harass m e nt
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid No 32 16.9 20.0 20.0
May be 61 32.3 38.1 58.1
Y es 67 35.4 41.9 100.0
Total 160 84.7 100.0
Mis sing System 29 15.3
Total 189 100.0
Strate gic leade rs hip from SMT w ould re duce se xual haras sm ent
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid No 8 4.2 4.8 4.8
May be 46 24.3 27.5 32.3
Y es 113 59.8 67.7 100.0
Total 167 88.4 100.0
Mis sing System 22 11.6
Total 189 100.0
Recording incidents in an incident book w ould re duce se xual haras s m e nt
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid No 19 10.1 11.6 11.6
May be 44 23.3 26.8 38.4
Y es 101 53.4 61.6 100.0
Total 164 86.8 100.0
Mis sing System 25 13.2
Total 189 100.0
Anti-bullying policie s re fer ring e xplicitly w ould reduce s e xual harass m ent
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid No 10 5.3 6.1 6.1
May be 38 20.1 23.2 29.3
Y es 116 61.4 70.7 100.0
Total 164 86.8 100.0
Mis sing System 25 13.2
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 65 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Sexis m / ge nde r e quality training for gove rnor s / SMT w ould re duce se xual
harass m e nt
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid No 11 5.8 6.6 6.6
May be 57 30.2 34.3 41.0
Y es 98 51.9 59.0 100.0
Total 166 87.8 100.0
Mis sing System 23 12.2
Total 189 100.0
INSET on ge nde r e quality w ould reduce s exual harass m e nt
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid No 10 5.3 6.4 6.4
May be 57 30.2 36.5 42.9
Y es 89 47.1 57.1 100.0
Total 156 82.5 100.0
Mis sing System 33 17.5
Total 189 100.0
Othe r m e as ures w ould re duce se xual haras s m e nt
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid May be 1 .5 3.6 3.6
Yes 27 14.3 96.4 100.0
Total 28 14.8 100.0
Mis sing System 161 85.2
Total 189 100.0
Panic buttons / alarm s w ould pre ve nt s exual as s aults
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 14 7.4 8.7 8.7
May be 62 32.8 38.5 47.2
Yes 85 45.0 52.8 100.0
Total 161 85.2 100.0
Mis sing System 28 14.8
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 66 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Strate gic leade rs hip from SMT w ould prevent se xual ass aults
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid No 9 4.8 5.5 5.5
May be 58 30.7 35.2 40.6
Y es 98 51.9 59.4 100.0
Total 165 87.3 100.0
Mis sing System 24 12.7
Total 189 100.0
Whole -ins titution curr iculum policy on se xis m and e quality w ould pre ve nt
s exual as s aults
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid No 11 5.8 6.5 6.5
May be 46 24.3 27.1 33.5
Y es 113 59.8 66.5 100.0
Total 170 89.9 100.0
Mis sing System 19 10.1
Total 189 100.0
Prevention education agains t viole nce against w om e n w ould pre ve nt s exual
as s aults
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid No 5 2.6 2.8 2.8
May be 50 26.5 28.4 31.3
Y es 121 64.0 68.8 100.0
Total 176 93.1 100.0
Mis sing System 13 6.9
Total 189 100.0
Security pers onnel w ould pre ve nt s exual as s aults
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 35 18.5 22.3 22.3
May be 81 42.9 51.6 73.9
Yes 41 21.7 26.1 100.0
Total 157 83.1 100.0
Mis sing System 32 16.9
Total 189 100.0
Othe r m e as ures w ould pre ve nt se xual as saults
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Yes 16 8.5 100.0 100.0
Mis sing System 173 91.5
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 67 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
APPENDIX VIII
SCHOOL POLICIES AND CHANGE OVER CAREERS
Notes In the tables, the „Frequency‟ column gives the actual numbers, „Percent‟ is of the
whole sample, and „Valid Percent‟ and „Cumulative Percent‟ apply only to those who
answered the question; „Missing‟ respondents did not answer the question, for example
because they had not experienced the behaviour in question. Questions answered by
only a small proportion of pupils (e.g. how schools responded to incidents) are reported
in the text.
Doe s ins titution have a w hole s chool e qual oppor tunitie s policy?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid No 2 1.1 1.1 1.1
Don't know 29 15.3 15.8 16.9
Y es 152 80.4 83.1 100.0
Total 183 96.8 100.0
Mis sing System 6 3.2
Total 189 100.0
Doe s ins titution have a pupil be haviour policy cove ring se xual haras s m e nt and
bullying?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent V alid Percent Percent
V alid No 49 25.9 26.8 26.8
Don't know 87 46.0 47.5 74.3
Y es 47 24.9 25.7 100.0
Total 183 96.8 100.0
Mis sing System 6 3.2
Total 189 100.0
Doe s ins titution have a w orkplace harras s m e nt policy covering s exual
harass m e nt and bullying?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 40 21.2 22.0 22.0
Don't know 105 55.6 57.7 79.7
Yes 37 19.6 20.3 100.0
Total 182 96.3 100.0
Mis sing System 7 3.7
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 68 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Have incidents of s e xist language from pupils incr ease d s ince started
te aching?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 27 14.3 21.8 21.8
Don't know 33 17.5 26.6 48.4
Yes 64 33.9 51.6 100.0
Total 124 65.6 100.0
Mis sing System 65 34.4
Total 189 100.0
Have incidents of s e xual har ras sm e nt from pupils incre as ed since s tarte d
te aching?
Cumulativ e
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 27 14.3 22.0 22.0
Don't know 57 30.2 46.3 68.3
Yes 39 20.6 31.7 100.0
Total 123 65.1 100.0
Mis sing System 66 34.9
Total 189 100.0
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 69 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
APPENDIX IX
RESPONSES - PRIMARY BY AGE & GENDER
Note Figures in tables are actual numbers of cases
Sexis t language / bullying by pupils * Ge nder * Age Cros s tabulation
Count
Gender
Age Male Female Total
21-28 Sexist language / No 1 11 12
bullying by pupils Yes 0 5 5
Total 1 16 17
29-39 Sexist language / No 2 12 14
bullying by pupils Yes 0 8 8
Total 2 20 22
40-49 Sexist language / No 2 11 13
bullying by pupils Yes 0 4 4
Total 2 15 17
50-59 Sexist language / No 4 15 19
bullying by pupils Yes 0 8 8
Total 4 23 27
60+ Sexist language / No 1 1
bullying by pupils Yes 1 1
Total 2 2
Sexis t language by pupils to s taff * Gender * Age Cros stabulation
Count
Gender
A ge Female Total
21-28 Sexist language Onc e a term 2 2
by pupils to s taf f Onc e a month 2 2
Onc e a w eek 1 1
Total 5 5
29-39 Sexist language Onc e a term 4 4
by pupils to s taf f Onc e a month 1 1
Total 5 5
40-49 Sexist language Onc e a month
1 1
by pupils to s taf f
Total 1 1
50-59 Sexist language Onc e a term 2 2
by pupils to s taf f Onc e a month 1 1
Total 3 3
60+ Sexist language Onc e a term
1 1
by pupils to s taf f
Total 1 1
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 70 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Sexis t langage by pupils to pupils * Gende r * Age Cross tabulation
Count
Gender
A ge Female Total
21-28 Sexist langage Onc e a term 1 1
by pupils to Onc e a month 2 2
pupils Onc e a w eek 1 1
Several times a w eek 1 1
Ev ery day 1 1
Total 6 6
29-39 Sexist langage Onc e a term 1 1
by pupils to Onc e a month 2 2
pupils Onc e a w eek 4 4
Total 7 7
40-49 Sexist langage Onc e a month 1 1
by pupils to Onc e a w eek 2 2
pupils Several times a w eek 1 1
Total 4 4
50-59 Sexist langage Onc e a term 6 6
by pupils to Onc e a w eek 1 1
pupils Ev ery day 1 1
Total 8 8
60+ Sexist langage Onc e a month
by pupils to 1 1
pupils
Total 1 1
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 71 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Sexis t bullying by pupils to pupils * Ge nde r * Age Cros s tabulation
Count
Gender
A ge Female Total
21-28 Sexist bully ing Onc e a term 2 2
by pupils to Onc e a month 1 1
pupils Onc e a w eek 2 2
Total 5 5
29-39 Sexist bully ing Onc e a term 3 3
by pupils to
pupils Onc e a w eek 2 2
Total 5 5
40-49 Sexist bully ing Onc e a term 1 1
by pupils to Onc e a month 2 2
pupils Onc e a w eek 1 1
Total 4 4
50-59 Sexist bully ing Onc e a term 3 3
by pupils to
pupils Onc e a month 1 1
Total 4 4
60+ Sexist bully ing Onc e a w eek
by pupils to 1 1
pupils
Total 1 1
Sexis t language by pupils to re s ponde nt * Gende r * Age Cros stabulation
Count
Gender
A ge Female Total
21-28 Sexist language by Onc e a term 3 3
pupils to res pondent Onc e a month 1 1
Total 4 4
29-39 Sexist language by Onc e a term
4 4
pupils to res pondent
Total 4 4
40-49 Sexist language by Onc e a term
1 1
pupils to res pondent
Total 1 1
50-59 Sexist language by Onc e a term
1 1
pupils to res pondent
Total 1 1
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 72 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Did you re port the incide nt of s e xist language / bullying? *
Gender * Age Cros stabulation
Count
Gender
A ge Female Total
21-28 Did y ou report the No 2 2
incident of s exist
language / bullying? Y es 3 3
Total 5 5
29-39 Did y ou report the No 3 3
incident of s exist
language / bullying? Y es 3 3
Total 6 6
40-49 Did y ou report the No
incident of s exist 2 2
language / bullying?
Total 2 2
50-59 Did y ou report the No 2 2
incident of s exist
language / bullying? Y es 3 3
Total 5 5
Did you re port the incident of s exual harass m ent? * Gende r * Age
Cross tabulation
Count
Gender
A ge Female Total
50-59 Did y ou report the incident No
1 1
of sexual haras sment?
Total 1 1
Thre at of s e xual ass ault by a pupil * Gender * Age Cr os stabulation
Count
Gender
Age Male Female Total
21-28 Threat of sexual No
1 16 17
as sault by a pupil
Total 1 16 17
29-39 Threat of sexual No
2 20 22
as sault by a pupil
Total 2 20 22
40-49 Threat of sexual No
2 15 17
as sault by a pupil
Total 2 15 17
50-59 Threat of sexual No
4 23 27
as sault by a pupil
Total 4 23 27
60+ Threat of sexual No
2 2
as sault by a pupil
Total 2 2
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 73 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
APPENDIX X
REPORTS FROM SECONDARY RESPONDENTS BY AGE & GENDER
Note Figures in tables are actual numbers of cases
Sexis t language / bullying by pupils * Ge nder * Age Cros s tabulation
Count
Gender
Age Male Female Total
21-28 Sexist language / No 1 7 8
bullying by pupils Yes 4 5 9
Total 5 12 17
29-39 Sexist language / No 1 5 6
bullying by pupils Yes 6 14 20
Total 7 19 26
40-49 Sexist language / No 0 2 2
bullying by pupils Yes 3 11 14
Total 3 13 16
50-59 Sexist language / No 1 1 2
bullying by pupils Yes 2 12 14
Total 3 13 16
60+ Sexist language / No 1 0 1
bullying by pupils Yes 0 3 3
Total 1 3 4
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 74 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Sexis t language by pupils to s taff * Gender * Age Cros stabulation
Count
Gender
A ge Male Female Total
21-28 Sexist language Onc e a term 3 2 5
by pupils to s taf f Onc e a w eek 1 2 3
Several times a w eek 0 1 1
Total 4 5 9
29-39 Sexist language Onc e a term 1 5 6
by pupils to s taf f Onc e a month 1 3 4
Onc e a w eek 0 2 2
Several times a w eek 2 3 5
Ev ery day 1 0 1
Total 5 13 18
40-49 Sexist language Onc e a term 1 4 5
by pupils to s taf f Onc e a month 2 2 4
Several times a w eek 0 2 2
Total 3 8 11
50-59 Sexist language Onc e a term 1 5 6
by pupils to s taf f Onc e a month 0 1 1
Onc e a w eek 0 1 1
Several times a w eek 1 2 3
Ev ery day 0 2 2
Total 2 11 13
60+ Sexist language Onc e a term
1 1
by pupils to s taf f
Total 1 1
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 75 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Sexis t langage by pupils to pupils * Gende r * Age Cross tabulation
Count
Gender
A ge Male Female Total
21-28 Sexist langage Onc e a term 1 0 1
by pupils to Onc e a month 1 1 2
pupils Onc e a w eek 1 0 1
Several times a w eek 0 2 2
Ev ery day 1 2 3
Total 4 5 9
29-39 Sexist langage Onc e a term 1 2 3
by pupils to Onc e a month 0 1 1
pupils Onc e a w eek 1 2 3
Several times a w eek 1 7 8
Ev ery day 3 2 5
Total 6 14 20
40-49 Sexist langage Onc e a month 0 1 1
by pupils to Onc e a w eek 2 4 6
pupils Several times a w eek 1 2 3
Ev ery day 0 3 3
Total 3 10 13
50-59 Sexist langage Onc e a term 0 2 2
by pupils to Onc e a month 0 1 1
pupils Onc e a w eek 0 4 4
Several times a w eek 0 1 1
Ev ery day 2 4 6
Total 2 12 14
60+ Sexist langage Onc e a month 1 1
by pupils to
pupils Several times a w eek 1 1
Total 2 2
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 76 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Sexis t bullying by pupils to pupils * Ge nder * Age Cros s tabulation
Count
Gender
A ge Male Female Total
21-28 Sexist bully ing Onc e a term 1 0 1
by pupils to Onc e a month 0 2 2
pupils Onc e a w eek 1 1 2
Ev ery day 1 2 3
Total 3 5 8
29-39 Sexist bully ing Onc e a term 3 4 7
by pupils to Onc e a month 1 1 2
pupils Onc e a w eek 0 1 1
Several times a w eek 1 3 4
Ev ery day 1 1 2
Total 6 10 16
40-49 Sexist bully ing Onc e a term 0 3 3
by pupils to Onc e a month 2 2 4
pupils Onc e a w eek 0 1 1
Several times a w eek 0 2 2
Ev ery day 0 1 1
Total 2 9 11
50-59 Sexist bully ing Onc e a term 0 4 4
by pupils to Onc e a month 0 1 1
pupils Onc e a w eek 0 1 1
Several times a w eek 0 2 2
Ev ery day 1 2 3
Total 1 10 11
60+ Sexist bully ing Onc e a month 1 1
by pupils to
pupils Onc e a w eek 1 1
Total 2 2
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 77 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Sexis t language by pupils to re spondent * Ge nder * Age Cr os stabulation
Count
Gender
A ge Male Female Total
21-28 Sexist language Onc e a term 1 1 2
by pupils to Onc e a month 0 2 2
res pondent Several times a w eek 0 1 1
Total 1 4 5
29-39 Sexist language Onc e a term 2 3 5
by pupils to Onc e a month 0 2 2
res pondent Onc e a w eek 1 1 2
Several times a w eek 0 1 1
Ev ery day 1 0 1
Total 4 7 11
40-49 Sexist language Onc e a term 4 4
by pupils to
res pondent Onc e a month 1 1
Total 5 5
50-59 Sexist language Onc e a term 2 2
by pupils to Onc e a month 1 1
res pondent Onc e a w eek 2 2
Total 5 5
60+ Sexist language Onc e a term
by pupils to 1 1
res pondent
Total 1 1
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 78 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Did you re port the incide nt of s e xist language / bullying? * Ge nde r * Age
Cross tabulation
Count
Gender
A ge Male Female Total
21-28 Did y ou report the No 2 3 5
incident of s exist
language / bullying? Y es 0 1 1
Total 2 4 6
29-39 Did y ou report the No 3 5 8
incident of s exist
language / bullying? Y es 1 5 6
Total 4 10 14
40-49 Did y ou report the No 4 4
incident of s exist
language / bullying? Y es 1 1
Total 5 5
50-59 Did y ou report the No 0 4 4
incident of s exist
language / bullying? Y es 1 4 5
Total 1 8 9
60+ Did y ou report the No 1 1
incident of s exist
language / bullying? Y es 1 1
Total 2 2
Did you re port the incident of s exual harass m e nt? * Ge nde r * Age
Cross tabulation
Count
Gender
A ge Male Female Total
21-28 Did y ou report the incident No
2 2
of sexual haras sment?
Total 2 2
29-39 Did y ou report the incident No 1 2 3
of sexual haras sment? Y es 1 5 6
Total 2 7 9
40-49 Did y ou report the incident No
1 1
of sexual haras sment?
Total 1 1
50-59 Did y ou report the incident No 1 1
of sexual haras sment? Y es 1 1
Total 2 2
60+ Did y ou report the incident No
1 1
of sexual haras sment?
Total 1 1
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 79 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM
Thre at of s exual ass ault by a pupil * Ge nde r * Age Cross tabulation
Count
Gender
Age Male Female Total
21-28 Threat of sexual as sault No 5 11 16
by a pupil Yes 0 1 1
Total 5 12 17
29-39 Threat of sexual as sault No 7 18 25
by a pupil Yes 0 1 1
Total 7 19 26
40-49 Threat of sexual as sault No
3 13 16
by a pupil
Total 3 13 16
50-59 Threat of sexual as sault No
3 13 16
by a pupil
Total 3 13 16
60+ Threat of sexual as sault No
1 3 4
by a pupil
Total 1 3 4
2538c16c-e8b2-4e1a-a7bb-65fbd0f32d7a.doc 80 31 October 2011
Created: 1 November 2006/UoW
Revised: 8 November 2006/JM