Equity, power, and capabilities: Constructions of gender in Tanzanian secondary school

©!"## Feminist Formations, Vol. !$ No. $ (Fall) pp. #%$–#&%

Equity, Power, and Capabilities: Constructions of Gender in a Tanzanian Secondary School

Matthew A. M. Thomas and Allen Rugambwa

This article aims to move beyond issues of access to schooling for girls to investigate the constructions of gender through a macro-level analysis of policy and micro-level analysis of practice at a secondary school in Tanzania. State-sanctioned school texts are examined, as well as classroom discourse and teachers’ understandings of gender, to show how both “gender as equity” and “gender as power relations” perspectives interact in schools. While there have been advances in the recognition of gender as a structuring force within schools and society, this article contends that the capabilities approach adds value to these views by considering how gendered texts and discourses may still be limiting the capabilities of female and male students in Tanzanian secondary schools.

Keywords: capabilities approach / gender / international development'/ pedagogy'/ secondary school'/ Tanzania'/ teacher education

Introduction

Issues of gender equity and equality have in recent decades moved to the forefront of both international development agendas and educational policy making in countries of the global South. Commitments made by United Nations agencies, international donors, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) at prominent conferences and international meetings have resulted in signi(cant agreements, including the #))" Jomtien Declaration, which emphasized equi-table access to basic education for girls. The !""" Dakar Framework for Action

#%* · Feminist Formations !$.!

was also in+uential and marked the beginning of the United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative (UNGEI), as well as a renewed push to achieve Millen-nium Development Goals ! and $, achieving universal primary education and eliminating gender disparity in primary and secondary education, respectively.

While the outcomes achieved as a result of this global commitment to redressing disparity are laudable, the interpretation and implementation of these agreements often privileged enrollment in schooling as the primary focus of the development agenda. Ensuring equitable access to education was considered adequate for, and in many ways equated with, achieving suitable advance-ments in women’s empowerment. This perspective is largely characterized by the women in development (WID) approach, which views women as integral to economic growth and national development (Beetham and Demetriades !""&; Vavrus and Richey !""$). Indeed, access to education is critical for economic development, and some achievements in these areas have been remarkable. However, recent scholarship and practice has recognized that mere equality of enrollment in schooling is not suf(cient to address gendered relations of power that pervade educational institutions (Aikman, Unterhalter, and Chal-lender !""%). The form, quality, and content of education also has a signi(cant in+uence on the social, academic, and economic development of the students enrolled, particularly girls. Therefore, schooling on its own should not be viewed as a panacea that will unequivocally empower and create a sense of agency for girls or boys (Vavrus !""$). This is particularly important in educational con-texts where constructions of gender are being challenged but remain constrained by teachers’ perspectives of gender equity and by how they enact the national curriculum in the classroom.

This article examines such a constrained context—namely, secondary schooling in the United Republic of Tanzania, where government efforts to promote girls’ education have been in place for several decades (Mbilinyi #)),; Vavrus !"""). Although initial policy goals aimed primarily at increasing girls’ access to education, secondary schooling in Tanzania has, in many ways, moved “beyond access issues” to incorporate gender-related topics and materials in the curriculum (Heward #))), #"). One interpretation of this shift is that Tanza-nian policy makers and curriculum developers have transitioned from a WID approach to a gender and development (GAD) approach, with its attention to multifaceted social relations of power. An examination of curricular materials and classroom practices lends some support to this position, but a more careful analysis of government-sanctioned class readers, national syllabi, and classroom discourse suggests that the WID and GAD perspectives co-mingle in schools and produce con+icting messages about the progress achieved and even the goals to be pursued with regards to gender inequality. Moreover, teachers’ own views of gender embody assumptions common to both WID and GAD perspec-tives, thereby advancing girls’ education in some respects while simultaneously limiting their capabilities (Sen #))!; Walker and Unterhalter !""&).

Matthew A. M. Thomas and Allen Rugambwa · #%%

In this article, we investigate constructions of gender in teaching materials and classroom practice through a case study of a secondary school in northern Tanzania. This case is part of a larger six-school study and a teacher professional-development program in which we have been engaged in the same part of the country. Based on our analysis of qualitative data from primary documents, focus-group discussions, interviews, and classroom observations, we argue that the formal curriculum in Tanzanian secondary schools may strive to address the “complex and changing social relations” that undergird a GAD approach to gender, while nevertheless maintaining a conceptualization of gender consistent with the emphasis on ef(ciency and equity as found in the WID perspective (Unterhalter !""%, #%). Furthermore, we contend that teachers’ views on gender are part of this formal curriculum and ought to be considered alongside of(cial teaching materials to complicate notions of gender and power within analyses of the schooling and the state. We concur with Stromquist (#))%), who argues that while the state is critical to analyses of education in contexts where it codi(es and certi(es knowledge through schooling, as in Tanzania, it is also important to examine power relations at the micro-level in schools. Drawing on Foucault, Stromquist suggests that “the conventional notion of political power has focused all its attention on public political structures and processes, neglecting to admit that power transactions occur at all levels of society and that the lower levels are equally important” (*$$). In this article, then, we conduct a micro-level analysis at one secondary school and examine both state-sanctioned school texts as well as classroom discourse and teachers’ understandings of gender to show how both “gender as equity” and “gender as power relations” perspectives interact in schools. While these perspectives are advances in the recognition of gender as a structuring force within schools and society, we contend that these views do not go as far as the capabilities approach in recognizing how texts and discourses aimed at addressing gender inequality might still be limiting the capabilities of female and male students in Tanzanian secondary schools.

These three theoretical approaches—WID, GAD, and the capabilities approach—are brie+y summarized in the following section. The article then turns to the research setting and participants, followed by an explanation of the research methods and process. The section that follows includes a discussion of the data and how it maps onto the WID and GAD approaches, while the concluding sections raise questions about how students’ and teachers’ capabili-ties could be enhanced through more consistent and comprehensive attempts to ensure the development of all students.

WID, GAD, and the Capabilities Approach

Women in Development (WID)The concept of women in development arose in the #)&"s and was largely in+u-enced by the scholarship of Boserup (#)&"), whose seminal work examined the

#%- · Feminist Formations !$.!

division of labor in agrarian societies and precipitated a series of movements and initiatives by liberal feminists to include women in economic production (Rathgeber #))"). This ultimately led to an emphasis on ef(ciency among devel-opment organizations and national governments, wherein a more egalitarian inclusion and participation of women in the formal marketplace were assumed to increase production and modernize societies (Beetham and Demetriades !""&). However, the WID approach aimed to include women as a means to achieve development goals, not necessarily to challenge gendered norms and relations of power in societies stemming from structural inequalities. As Vavrus and Richey (!""$) note, “women came to be viewed not only as development ‘ends,’ but also as a means of reaching project goals,” with WID project goals typically directed at economic or political development within existing social systems ()).

Within the (eld of education speci(cally, the WID approach has directed attention primarily toward issues of enrollment and achievement on examina-tions. Gender, from a WID perspective, “is equated with women and girls, who are identi(ed descriptively in terms of biological differences” (Unterhalter !""%, #,). Therefore gender parity is one of the most common indicators of success from a WID perspective, with the number of boys and girls enrolled at each level of education, the ratio of male and female teachers, and other numeric indicators like repetition and promotion rates being particularly important data for analysis. Although achieving gender parity is an important goal shared by most feminists, an exclusive focus on quantitative indicators ignores extant power imbalances and cultural, economic, and political disadvantages that intersect with women’s subordination in many societies (Subrahamanian !""%). For these reasons, there has been a push to move “beyond access” and beyond solely quantitative indicators of girls’ achievement in schooling to embrace more complex analyses of gender relations in educational institutions (Aikman and Unterhalter !""%).

Gender and Development (GAD)The GAD approach was one such response to WID, as it aims to challenge gendered relations of power that underlie sociocultural and political-economic disparities re+ected in quantitative indicators of inequality. Although there are different emphases among those who embrace a GAD approach, there is general consensus that a broader conceptualization of both gender and development is necessary in scholarship, policy making, and educational practice than one (nds in the WID perspective. A GAD approach suggests that the inclusion of women in the marketplace or the parity of girls in schools does not automati-cally redress gendered injustices. Indeed, “GAD is not concerned with women per se but with the construction of gender and assignment of speci(c roles, responsibilities, and expectations to women and men” (Rathgeber #))", *)*). This approach, therefore, aims to address power relations and gender dynamics that produce particular constructions of masculinity and femininity in different

Matthew A. M. Thomas and Allen Rugambwa · #%&

contexts. It also marks a departure from the liberal economic and political focus in WID by questioning the assumption of a singular, linear path to gender equity or development (Brown !""&; Vavrus and Richey !""$). Furthermore, a GAD approach recognizes that gender is constructed in and through a variety of social institutions and practices that include, but are not limited to, schools and the workplace. It is the intersectionality of gendered sites and social structures that give relations of power their enduring quality and, from a GAD perspective, warrant interrogation by scholars and intervention by practitioners.

Schooling is a relatively recent institution addressed through a GAD approach (Unterhalter !""%), particularly in developing country contexts like Tanzania. This may be due, in part, to the challenge of implementing GAD and putting its principles into practice in schools (Brown !""&). Indeed, counting boys and girls enrolled in school is much easier than identifying and disrupt-ing gendered power relations. As Unterhalter (!""%) notes, one contribution of the GAD approach has been highlighting the “complexity of institutional change” (!-), and this presents particular challenges for policy makers and program developers. Despite the challenges of altering entrenched beliefs and social structures, the GAD approach has made signi(cant contributions to the processes of education in schools. For example, changes to gendered language and pictures in textbooks and syllabi have occurred as a result of efforts informed by a GAD perspective. In addition, implementing gender-sensitive curricula has also been applied in educational settings as a means to mainstream gender, although some GAD approaches could attend more systematically to creating gender-responsive environments (Miske, Meagher, and DeJaeghere !"#"). Other examples from the Tanzanian context will be explored later in this article to illustrate both the strengths and limitations of the GAD approach for schooling in the country.

Capabilities ApproachBoth the WID and GAD approaches have been utilized in examinations of edu-cation in the global South in recent years, but the capabilities approach is only beginning to in+uence how gender, education, and development are conceptual-ized. This approach is often described as a broad conceptual framework whose core tenets include a “focus on what people are effectively able to do and to be” (Robeyns !""%, )*); it also considers “what it is that each individual has reason to value” (Unterhalter !""%, !,), with this valuing differing across individuals and societies to some extent while still maintaining some sense of universality, at least in Nussbaum’s (!"##) version of the approach, which she refers to as the “central capabilities” common to all human beings ($$–$*). Although there are notable differences among scholars of the capabilities approach, they share common assumptions relevant to this article, such as the freedom for people to choose their own de(nitions and indicators of development, and the neces-sity of removing barriers that inhibit the realization of these ends (ibid.; Sen

#%, · Feminist Formations !$.!

#))!, #))$). Most scholars working within a capabilities framework also make an important distinction between functionings as outcomes, and capabilities as potentials to achieve those outcomes (Sen #))$). Walker and Unterhalter (!""&), for instance, provide an excellent example from the (eld of education, wherein two hypothetical students might both fail a terminal exam, such as the Form * exam in Tanzania, and thus their functionings are the same. Their capabilities, however, may be very different, with valuable resources and tutoring available to one student, who ultimately chooses not to prioritize studying, and little or no resources and tutoring available to the other.

This distinction between functionings and capabilities helps to frame how different capabilities may limit or enable various functionings. While the GAD approach maintains a strong focus on the structural inequalities existent in social institutions, which may also limit functionings, the capabilities approach places greater value on ensuring individual freedoms and the equitable distribu-tion of capabilities and possibilities (Unterhalter !""%; Walker and Unterhalter !""&). This approach also aims to be normative, assuming that certain basic capabilities should be available to all women (and men) across contexts despite cultural differences (Nussbaum !"""), although scholars have contested the degree to which these capabilities should be explicitly stated. Nonetheless, two of Nussbaum’s (!"##) central capabilities are valuable for our analysis: “bodily integrity” is concerned with freedom from sexual assault and the ability to move freely; and “af(liation,” which relates to the social interactions and digni(ed treatment of all humans ($$–$*). With these constructs and theoretical ori-entations in mind, we now turn to the research project itself to examine how these perspectives operate in practice through actions of the state vis-à-vis national policies and syllabi, and through the actions of those most integral to the educational process, the teachers themselves.

Research Setting and Participants

The data analyzed in this section are part of a larger research project concerned with pedagogical reform at the secondary school level in Tanzania (Vavrus and Bartlett forthcoming). For this larger project, a team of sixteen research-ers co-facilitated a one-week professional-development workshop for in-service secondary school teachers at a teacher education institution in the Kilimanjaro region of Tanzania (Thomas and Vavrus !"#"). Approximately seventy teach-ers from a wide variety of public and private schools attended the workshop in !"#"—the fourth annual workshop since its inception in !""&. The content of the workshop focused on a number of educational issues relevant to Tanzanian teachers; for example, teaching large classes, utilizing active and participatory instructional approaches, and creating low-cost teaching aids. The workshop also included a two-hour session on gender-inclusive pedagogy. During this ses-sion, facilitators divided the teachers into small groups, where they discussed

Matthew A. M. Thomas and Allen Rugambwa · #%)

case studies based on gender and power relations common in Tanzanian sec-ondary schools, including scenarios in which a teacher hears that a colleague is having a sexual relationship with a student; witnesses male students harassing female students and teasing them about their breasts and menstruation; and sees a fellow teacher belittling a female student and calling her “stupid.” Key concepts related to gender, such as gender norms, gender roles, sexual assault, harassment, teasing, and power, were also discussed during the session, and the participants received multiple handouts with information about “promoting gender-responsiveness and gender equity in schools.” Members of each small group then shared with the plenary group their ideas about how they would respond to each case as a bystander, and what they would do to prevent similar situations in the future.

The research component of the workshop was based at six schools that had been selected by the Tanzanian teachers college that hosts the workshop, because of the schools’ existing relationships with the college and their repu-tations as good secondary schools based on published exam scores and school leadership. The teachers who participated in the workshop from these six focal schools attended a meeting on the (rst day of the workshop, in which the research project was explained to them and informed consent was sought for observations in their classes and interviews during the months after the workshop. Twenty-three teachers from these six schools agreed to serve as focal teachers. The three teachers from Dunia Secondary School, the school upon which we focus, are the primary participants in our component of the research project. The names of the focal teachers included in this article, as well as the school’s name, are pseudonyms in order to protect the identity of the research participants.

The primary research for this article took place in !"#" over the course of the (rst month following the teaching workshop. Dunia, a relatively new private secondary school, lies just outside a major commercial city in Tanzania. The school is less than (ve years old and is a boarding school, where the vast majority of students live in dormitories on campus. There were !)! students in !"#", only about a third of whom were female. The gender imbalance was more prominent for teachers, however, as Dunia had thirteen male teachers and only one female teacher, although neither author found her in the faculty room or saw her on campus throughout this study. Upon returning to the school in !"## to conduct follow-up research, the researchers discovered that three female teachers had joined the staff since the initial data-collection period, and the school head seemed committed to addressing this gender imbalance. The entire administration, comprised of the school’s headmaster, second master (vice principal), academic master, and discipline master continues to consist solely of males. There were some women on the cooking staff and a female receptionist who worked within the administration of(ce block, but this was the extent of female representation on Dunia’s campus in !"#".

#-" · Feminist Formations !$.!

All three focal teachers, or research participants, at Dunia are male and unmarried. Brother Godson, a middle-aged man, teaches history to students in Forms # and $ and serves as the discipline master, who dispenses disciplinary measures on a daily basis.1 He also serves as a religious patron, meaning that he guides students in moral instruction, and is a member of the Catholic congrega-tion that operates the school. The second participant, Mr. Foleni, is an English teacher for Forms # and * as well as the academic master, an important position in the day-to-day administration of the school. He is responsible for monitor-ing students’ attendance, the payment of school fees, and other logistics. Mr. Foleni is young, energetic, and extremely busy with his many responsibilities at the school. Mr. Peter is the third research participant, and he teaches biology to students in Forms ! and $, while working with Mr. Foleni as the assistant academic master. He is young, enthusiastic, and eager to try new instructional approaches. The inclusion of three male teachers and no female teachers in this study certainly has implications for the (ndings. However, these were the only focal teachers selected by the headmaster of Dunia to attend the professional development workshop in !"#". Additionally, it is important to note that the vast majority of secondary school teachers in Tanzania are male.2 Thus, while we believe the inclusion of female teachers in this study would have added further insight and richness, it was not possible to do so under the constraints of the larger research project.

Research Methods

To develop relationships and understandings at Dunia, both authors lived on campus and interacted extensively with teachers who were and were not part of the research project. Additionally, both researchers drew on their three years of experience in co-facilitating the professional-development workshop to analyze the data below. Data-collection methods for this study included semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, classroom observations, and document analyses. Two in-depth interviews were conducted with each research partici-pant, the (rst at the beginning of the data-collection period and the second several weeks later. The gap between the interviews served as a means to ensure greater accuracy of responses; several questions were asked in similar forms in both interviews, which allowed initial questions and themes to be modi(ed and expanded (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison !""&). Each interview ranged from one to two hours long and was co-conducted by both researchers. Questions related to gender included the following: When you think about “gender equity,” what does that term mean to you? How do you work with girls in your class-room? What do you think needs to happen in Tanzania for there to be gender equity? Two focus-group sessions were also conducted with the three research participants, the (rst occurring during the workshop in !"#", prior to collecting data on Dunia’s campus, and the second during a return visit to Dunia in !"##.

Matthew A. M. Thomas and Allen Rugambwa · #-#

Both researchers also conducted participant observations in the focal teachers’ classrooms and reviewed primary documents. Each participant was observed for at least six lessons during the initial month of data collection. Two participants were observed again three months later to ensure greater consistency across the observations, and to better understand how teachers were utilizing methods from the workshop in the classroom (Maxwell !""%). Most of the observations spanned an entire double-block lesson, lasting eighty minutes. When possible, both researchers were present in the classroom to provide a higher degree of data triangulation and quality. The researchers then expanded and typed up (eld notes separately before discussing or comparing what had been observed. Finally, documents vital to the analysis of gender in schooling were reviewed to complement the school-level data. These documents included education policies, teachers’ lesson plans, national syllabi for subjects in which gender is explicitly addressed, and student work, such as homework exercises and presentations.

Data analysis involved transcribing the interviews, reviewing the class-room observations and documents, and coding all the data using open and axial coding (Strauss and Corbin #)),). Through inductive analysis conducted separately by each researcher, several prominent themes emerged from the data. Frequent discussions between the researchers about respondents’ statements and actions added further insight, particularly because of the researchers’ distinctly different positionalities (Patton !""!): One is a male Tanzanian who, as a physics education instructor at a Tanzanian college of education, is intimately aware of the educational environment in the country; the other is a male educational researcher from the United States who has previously conducted research in east and southern Africa and has worked as a secondary school teacher and adjunct faculty member in a college of education in the United States (Thomas and Thomas !""); Thomas and Vavrus !"#").

After the collaborative process of analyzing data, a list of preliminary (nd-ings from the larger study at the six focal schools was generated and discussed with the headmaster and three research participants at Dunia in !"##. Addition-ally, a research conference was held at the site of the professional-development workshop as a means to present and engage in continued discussions about the data with teachers, school leaders, and teacher-educators in northern Tanza-nia. In the following sections, the major themes are analyzed using WID and GAD as frameworks for understanding how girls’ education and gender are conceptualized by teachers, policy makers, and curriculum developers.

Varied Constructions of Gender

Constructions of Gender Informed by WIDThe inclusion and equal representation of women and girls in schools are key markers of social progress from a WID perspective. In Tanzania, numerous

#-! · Feminist Formations !$.!

government initiatives have been launched to improve parity across a wide range of social sectors, including, but not limited to, education. For instance, as of the !"#" national general elections, the Parliament of Tanzania has des-ignated #"! “special seats” for female representatives who are chosen by their political parties, as well as a female Speaker of the House—the (rst since its inception in #)!- (United Republic of Tanzania !"##). This issue was cited by Mr. Godson (!"#"a), one of the focal teachers in this study, as a response to an interview question regarding what needs to happen in Tanzania for there to be gender equity:

Also the government has done much in the administrative of(ces. Because, most of what, most of(ces are run by the women, this is a very good example. Especially the MPs [Members of Parliament], the, the ministers. We have women ministers. And this one also attracted women to know that they can also do something. I think those [are] areas where Tanzania has played a big role. Big role.3

For Mr. Godson, the presence of female MPs and administrators was an impor-tant sign that women can attain high-power positions. He noted that he tries to provide “examples of women who have come up” in order to “motivate them [girls] like that.”

In the education sector, the Ministry of Education and Culture began focus-ing more concretely on gender in the mid-#))"s, even though some af(rmative-action policies to increase girls’ and women’s enrollment in education began in the late #)&"s (Lihamba, Mwaipopo, and Shule !""-). Data from the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training (!"#"a) indicate that gender parity is now nearly equal at lower levels of education. In addition, female enrollment in education, particularly at the secondary and teacher education levels, continues to improve, which indicates that more girls are able to access education than in the past. This outcome aims to meet the “high degree of gender equity” target espoused by the Secondary Education Development Programme and other national-level planning documents, such as Tanzania’s Vision !"!% (Ministry of Education and Culture !""*, v). Nevertheless, while student enrollment levels are nearly equal at the primary and secondary levels, the percentages of male and female teachers at the secondary and teacher-training levels are not; in !""&, only $" percent of all secondary school teachers and teacher trainers in Tanzania were female (Ministry of Education and Vocational Training !""&). Furthermore, there are signi(cant inequalities in higher education, with females comprising only $$.% percent of the students pursuing undergraduate degrees in government universities (Ministry of Education and Vocational Training !"#"a).

Working toward the equitable inclusion of girls in classrooms is not only national policy, but was also evident at Dunia Secondary School. All three focal teachers noted that they seek to promote the participation of girls by explicitly asking them questions, or ensuring that boys and girls have equal opportunities

Matthew A. M. Thomas and Allen Rugambwa · #-$

to answer questions. Mr. Foleni (!"#"b) stated emphatically that “in fact every lesson, girls in my class should participate .'.'. whether they volunteer or raise up their hands, they have to answer something, just say something there in the class.” An example of this strategy was observed during a biology lesson on % August !"#", when Mr. Peter encouraged girls to participate during a series of questions about “gaseous exchange” in (sh:

M.. P/0/.: Yes, now after that? I want to hear from girls now. What happens after that? Any girl here in this class.

F/123/ 4056/70: The oxygen diffuses the blood.

According to Mr. Godson (!"#"b), this method of calling on girls even when they have not raised their hands is sometimes necessary to overcome situations where girls feel “nervous” about speaking in class. He explained how he addressed one such situation observed by the researchers where the boys were more prepared to answer his questions:

Because like yesterday, majority of the students who are ready to answer any questions were boys. Also the people, the students who are raising their hands (rst but because the girls they were just nervous, but at times I could ask the boys then, I make sure next, next question, a boy, a girl answers, is the one to answer. So, I made equality where if a boy answer this one, then a girl is the one to explain it, to give an explanation. Not only concentrating on the boys only. Or if the girls answers the question, if it is a matter of explanation, then I tell a boy to explain and in that way, everybody was involved. Yeah.

Gender equality, therefore, was related to the equal participation of boys and girls in answering questions. Mr. Godson and Mr. Peter both established struc-tures in their classrooms to include girls in schooling, just as many development initiatives have aimed to include women in development. These efforts have in many ways characterized WID as the “just add women and stir” approach to addressing gender disparities.

Another approach utilized by the focal teachers that aligns with a WID perspective is the mixing of boys and girls in groups. Mr. Peter believed that mixing male and female students during small group discussions served as a means to socialize students and to provide girls an equal opportunity to express themselves and experience success in general learning. As he explained in an interview (!"#"b):

Ok, eh, during the discussion when I assigned them to groups, I was able to mix up the two genders so that we don’t have a group of female themselves and men, so I mix them up so that if there is anything that they would have gotten from the other gender, the opposite gender, they got it. .'.'. So I had in mind that when they mix up, there will be that kind of general learning. There will be no feeling that, “now ladies themselves, we cannot do it here.” Now

#-* · Feminist Formations !$.!

that they are mixed, male and female, then it becomes balanced, so the aspect of gender in that lesson I think was taken care of that method of discussion.

By mixing students in groups, Mr. Peter seemed to think that he was “doing gender.” His approach to class discussion may increase the level of comfort between boys and girls, who often have circumscribed opportunities to inter-act in co-educational schools, which was also noted in the article in this issue by Muhanguzi, Bennett, and Muhanguzi about schools in Uganda (discussed below). However, Mr. Peter and other teachers at Dunia did not mention the idea that power dynamics between boys and girls in groups might inhibit the participation of some students. Mixing students may actually reinforce gender stereotypes if boys are consistently the leaders of the groups or dominate the discussions. Furthermore, Mr. Peter’s comment about challenging the feeling that ladies “cannot do it here” may belie his stated aims of socializing boys and girls together so that things are “balanced.” Indeed, one interpretation of this comment might be a belief that girls must be placed into mixed groups, because they would be academically unsuccessful in groups without boys.

The history teacher, Mr. Godson, also used mixed groups in his classes to address perceived differences between the sexes. His comments from an inter-view (!"#"b) connoted a de(cit perspective similar to the interpretation of Mr. Peter’s remarks: “Or now, if it is in, in class, I mix them [girls] with boys, in, in terms of discussing. I mix them [boys] with girls. Then also sitting arrangement. I mix them [girls] with the boys who are bright so that at the end of the day, they come out of their, where they are hiding. Because when you are mixed with the boys who are bright, at the, after some time, they, they will start thinking also like boys.” Mr. Godson’s perspective clearly indicated that “thinking like boys” was the normative stance and the standard against which girls would be judged. He seemed to suggest that girls can only learn to be more like boys—brighter, less shy, and so on—if they are placed in co-educational groups. Such views are consistent with a WID perspective, which holds that overcoming stereotypes about girls being less able than men can be achieved through initiatives that enable women to make it in a men’s world. This adding of women to existing social structures, however, does not question or contest the rules governing these arrangements, as one would from a GAD point of view.

Despite Mr. Godson’s comments, all three focal teachers at Dunia appeared very concerned about the performance of both boys and girls on exams, and they wanted to employ methods that would help all of their students improve their scores. In fact, several teachers used competition based on exam performance as a motivating factor to encourage learning by whichever group they perceived to be underperforming. For instance, Mr. Foleni (!"#"a) explained:

And also, in my class, during examination, once the exams comes out, I used to, to encourage gender for that, for instance, maybe in Form #s girls are the ones making better, performing better than boys. Form *s boys are the ones

Matthew A. M. Thomas and Allen Rugambwa · #-%

who are just doing better than girls there. So, for Form #s I need to encourage boys: “Boys every time is girls. Where, where are you? You have to work hard.” .'.'. Doing that, encouraging them, motivating them.

The use of gender-based differences on exams as a motivating technique is similar to the rationale for mixed-sex groups because the goal is to help girls catch up to boys, which, from a WID perspective, is an end in itself. As Unterhalter (!""%) notes: “WID practice is not much concerned with the content of what girls learn, how they learn, or whether gender inequalities face them after their years in school are over” (!"). Similarly, the teachers at Dunia seemed to be satis(ed with efforts to achieve equality on exam scores, rather than engaging in a broader critique of power and inequality within and beyond the classroom.4

In summary, some government initiatives, as well as the individual actions of some teachers, re+ect understandings of gender as static and dichotomous, and of gender equity as equal opportunity and performance in the classroom.

Constructions of Gender Informed by GADThe WID perspectives incorporated into national policy and teachers’ beliefs and practices at Dunia coexist alongside more complex understandings of gen-dered relations of power in some Tanzanian curricula, teaching materials, and classroom practices. For instance, in !""#, the Teacher Education Master Plan recognized that “gender sensitivity training is a weak component” of the pre-service curriculum used to train teachers (Ministry of Education and Culture !""#, )). Since then, there have been several reforms aimed at improving gender sensitivity and gender equity in the education sector that go beyond numerical equality between girls and boys. For example, the most recent editions of the national syllabi for secondary schools, disseminated in !"#", contain several topics related to gender in different subjects.5 The civics syllabus for Ordinary level includes “Gender” as a lesson topic in Form !, where it is given a consider-able portion of the year’s lessons: nearly !% percent of the lessons are devoted to the issue of gender. During this topic, the students are supposed to discuss relevant terms, such as “gender analysis,” “gender equity,” and “gender discrimi-nation and oppression,” and teachers are to “guide students in groups to discuss effects of negative/socio-cultural practices to individuals and society” (Ministry of Education and Vocational Training !"#"b, %!). Gender is considered again in Form * during a topic on “Culture,” when students are to examine “customs which lead to gender discrimination” (&$). The English syllabus also includes topics related to gender and lists “gender roles” as a potential issue that students might choose for a descriptive essay (!"#"c, *!). Hawa, the Bus Driver, a text required by the English syllabus, incorporates elements of the GAD perspective and will be considered in greater detail below.

In addition to examining how the content of the national curriculum is informed by a GAD perspective, it is also necessary to examine how the

#-- · Feminist Formations !$.!

curriculum is enacted. The delivery or facilitation of the curriculum, both the hidden and the explicit curriculum, is ultimately dependent on school culture and on the experiences, personal beliefs, and knowledge bases of the school’s teachers (Aikman, Unterhalter, and Challender !""%). Teachers, therefore, have the ability to inadvertently reinforce gendered norms, despite attempts to alter them; in other words, the “gender and sexual identities instantiated in the institutional norms and practices .'.'. are constantly acted out and maintained in the face of contestation” (Dunne !""&, %"!). In this way, teachers contribute to the development of dominant notions of femininity and masculinity, which can be manifested through expectations of gendered behavior in the classroom (for example, boys are expected to be assertive, and girls shy and passive) (Kabeer !""%). This occurs even when teachers may seek to challenge these notions through the use of critical texts and critical thinking methods. In a context such as Tanzania, where secondary school teachers are predominantly male, an examination of how teachers enact their pedagogies is particularly important. In the case of Dunia, the data suggest that attempts by teachers to challenge gendered norms may convey mixed messages to students and, in some cases, reinforce gendered power dynamics. One poignant example of this situation was observed in Mr. Foleni’s Form # class, as described in the following vignette.

The classroom, which was rectangular in shape, had a blackboard at the front that provided a space for Mr. Foleni to write questions, assignments, and other notes. Other than the small bulletin board to the left side of the black-board, the walls were bare. Students had their own metal, movable chairs and wooden desks, which were arranged in (ve rows facing the chalkboard. The six girls in the class were all sitting near the front of the classroom.6 Upon enter-ing, Mr. Foleni wrote an “essential question” on the right side of the blackboard (Wiggins and McTighe !""%), a technique to promote critical thinking intro-duced during the teacher education workshop attended by Mr. Foleni. On this day, the question posed to students was: “What do you think about women who drive buses?” (Thomas and Rugambwa !"#").

The essential question was linked to the theme of the day’s lesson about gender and the role of female workers in society. This discussion followed the completion by Mr. Foleni’s students of Hawa, the Bus Driver (Mabala !""&). This text about a female bus driver in Tanzania is supposed to be taught by all Ordinary-level English teachers as part of the national curriculum. Bus driv-ers in Tanzania are typically male, so this text served as a good foundation for discussion with Mr. Foleni’s forty-one students, only six of whom were female. In this story, the protagonist, Hawa, becomes a very “famous” and successful bus driver. To achieve this, she overcomes several obstacles: Winning over co-workers who shun her and cease conversing when she enters the room; pas-sengers who discourage her from delaying her route to help an injured boy on the street; and a drunkard who threatens her with a knife. The biggest obstacle she must overcome, however, is the jealousy of her husband, Selemani, who

Matthew A. M. Thomas and Allen Rugambwa · #-&

tires of being called “Hawa’s husband”—when, in his mind, Hawa should be called “Selemani’s wife.”

Mr. Foleni introduced the day’s lesson by referring to the essential question and leading the students in a brief discussion of the text:

M.. F83/79: See this question here, just one question. What do you think about that? Women who drive buses, maybe it’s just the work of a man. [Stated in a tone apparently intending to spark discussion among the students.]

M23/ 4056/70: They are destroying African tradition.M.. F83/79: Which tradition?M23/ 4056/70: It says women are not to do dif(cult work.M.. F83/79: Like what?M23/ 4056/70: Building houses, other things.M.. F83/79: Okay, other people [students]?M23/ 4056/70: It is part of development. Not developing will come if we

follow the culture.M23/ 4056/70: If the woman drives the car, she is helping her husband.M.. F83/79: So, we are just (nding the opinions of our friends. One says it

is distorting our African culture. Women are to be cooking, staying at home, taking care of children, like babysitters. .'.'. Now, one said, this is a matter of development, one, you see women driving buses. .'.'. As aid that women are then helping their husbands through that driving. That way she can make the income for the family big. Girls, tell me what you think.

F/123/ 4056/70: People believe that if a women can drive a car, it shows that a job that a man can do, a woman can also do.

This classroom observation of ours, on * August !"#", highlights several impor-tant items for analysis regarding how GAD and WID perspectives co-mingle. First, it demonstrates Mr. Foleni’s method of engaging students in a classroom discussion about gender norms in Tanzanian society. He began the lesson with an essential question, and continued by “(nding the opinions” of the students in the group. He did not automatically chide the male student for his opinion about women who drive buses; rather, he asked clarifying questions that encour-age this student to re(ne his position. We observed this style of engagement and debate throughout the entire lesson.

Second, the male student suggested a sexual division of labor, where girls should not do “dif(cult work,” which, in his opinion, originates from “African tradition.” Mr. Foleni responded to this statement later in the lesson by suggest-ing that studying in school is sometimes “more dif(cult” than driving buses, and girls are currently “performing better” than boys in school. In this example, he seemed to draw on a WID perspective that relies on the academic performance of girls as an operational de(nition of equality. This approach interacts with a GAD perspective later in the lesson, however, when Mr. Foleni returned to

#-, · Feminist Formations !$.!

the notion of tradition and stated that cultural values or assumptions must sometimes be challenged in order to “empower women”:

Ah, okay, we have good things in our culture and bad things in our culture. The good things, we have to go on with using them. The bad things, we have to discard them. And also we can learn from our friends and compare what is good and what is bad. So, what you have said, “It destroys our culture .'.'.” that I can say, in some ways, yes, but driving and other things, it empowers women.

Here, Mr. Foleni utilized the terminology of empowerment and appeared to recognize the tension between “modern” and “traditional” notions of gender and the need to challenge certain cultural norms, a position generally consis-tent with a GAD perspective. Nevertheless, much of the classroom discourse re+ected a WID perspective, revolving around the “masculine” jobs that women should be allowed to perform to become equal to men.

In addition to investigating how Hawa, the Bus Driver was used in the class, it is important to examine how the text itself, as a government-sanctioned reader, reinforces, rather than subverts, dominant gender relations in domestic and broader societal arenas. One pronounced way involves the decision-making power wielded by Hawa’s husband, Selemani. In spite of her convictions and personal desire to continue driving the bus, Hawa is ultimately dependent upon her husband to “allow” her to keep her position. Upon hearing about his jeal-ousy regarding her growing fame, she writes a formal resignation letter to give to her boss. Although she clearly wants to continue as a bus driver, she awaits a verdict from her husband about whether she can continue. Selemani only changes his mind after Hawa’s friends inform him of her willingness to resign rather than anger him: “Your wife was ready to follow your orders. .'.'. [Others] see that you allow Hawa to do her work and they respect you for it. If you stop her working, you will lose that respect” (Mabala !""&, !-; emphasis added). After much persuasion by various community members, Selemani (nally concedes. However, the narrative becomes more complicated, because Selemani does not simply declare to Hawa that she can continue working; rather, he apologizes for not consulting with her and, in the end, asks for her views on her employment:

After seeing them off, Selemani came back, sat down and called his wife. “I am sorry,” he told her. “I didn’t ask your opinion. Do you want to go on working?”“Oh yes,” said Hawa. “If possible.”“Then continue,” said Selemani. (ibid.)

Here, one can see that reading Hawa, the Bus Driver could serve as a means to reinforce the role of a man as the “head of the home” who makes decisions unilaterally, and it could also provide a platform for discussion of consultative decision-making processes in the home and society in which men and women actively participate.

Matthew A. M. Thomas and Allen Rugambwa · #-)

The observations in Mr. Foleni’s class demonstrate in multiple ways how WID and GAD perspectives co-mingle within the Tanzanian secondary school environment. Hawa, the Bus Driver could certainly be used by teachers to high-light and contest assumptions about masculinity and femininity and gender dynamics across a range of social institutions. In a number of instances, Mr. Foleni attempted to do so, but the enactment of the syllabus in his class ulti-mately fell short of an integrated and comprehensive GAD analysis of gendered relations of power. One critical reason for this shortcoming has to do with the absence of re+exivity on the part of the teachers at Dunia regarding their own identities as gendered people in positions of power within the school, an issue to which we now turn.

Intergenerational Relations of Power and the Capabilities ApproachMissing from our observations and interviews with the three focal teachers was an understanding of the teachers themselves as engaged in gendered relations of power vis-à-vis their students, especially their female students. The teachers did not seem to critically examine the ways in which they are limiting or con-trolling the capabilities of their students, a vital perspective provided through the capabilities approach. Hierarchical power relations are an explicit part of the social structure of most Tanzanian schools, and teachers wield a great deal of authority over students, which manifests itself in multiple ways.7 Research in some African nations has documented frequent sexual relationships between male teachers and female students, and has suggested that these relationships frequently go unquestioned because they are consistent with dominant social hierarchies in schools and society (Bajaj !""); Dunne !""-). In contrast, as shown in the article by Muhanguzi and colleagues about schools in Uganda in this special issue, male and female students’ interactions in some locales are highly regulated because they are assumed to be sexual in nature. Thus, at schools like Dunia, one (nds a pattern of close regulation of students’ sexuality with their age-mates, but little scrutiny of male teacher/female student inter-actions, because of an implicit assumption that the latter are not sexualized.

This duality was most apparent during observations at the school and in the focus-group discussion in !"##. During the discussion, the focal teachers detailed the “no coupling” policy at Dunia, which prohibits boys and girls from dating or engaging in relationships that are more than platonic. While the intent of the policy is to prevent sexual relationships, the teachers acknowledged that it has “created a gap between boys and girls, and they do not want to be seen together” (focus group, #) May !"##). In fact, one teacher noted that students “have that fear, in that if a teacher sees us [referring to students] together, he [the teacher] is going to put a question mark in his mind, so they put that dis-tance between them.” Thus, boys and girls tend to “mix” or interact publicly only in class settings and, more speci(cally, in small groups, because the girls were typically seated together in most classrooms.

#&" · Feminist Formations !$.!

In contrast, girls at Dunia were described by the focal teachers as completely free to interact with male teachers and also to need such interactions, because of their limited engagement with boys. As one teacher explained: “If she [a female student] comes to me [as a male teacher], nobody is going to ask that question [that is, presume a sexual relationship]. .'.'. The teacher is the one taking care of the [no coupling] policy” (ibid.). He went on to say that girls “compensate what they lack” in interacting with boys by talking to male teachers: “They will feel they have talked to a man and will feel better.” This relationship, in his view, strongly contrasts with how girls interact with female teachers, as “girls are more free to talk to male teachers than female teachers .'.'. they repel [female teachers] but [are] attracted [to male teachers] as opposites.”8

While we do not intend to suggest that the teachers at Dunia are engaged in inappropriate behaviors or sexual relationships with female students, the focus-group discussion raised questions for us about the capabilities for boys and girls to interact freely with each other, and with teachers. Both authors noted during one observation that Mr. Foleni had shared a chair with a female student in the class while watching a student presentation, even though there were many more male students in this class whose chairs could have been shared or, in a manner more consistent with classroom hierarchies, the teacher could have told two students to share a chair so that the teacher could have had one to himself. How might the actions of this teacher be compromising the bodily integrity of this female student, who may feel further subjugated through con-tinued interactions of this nature? Furthermore, the data raise questions for us about how the constraints of the school’s policy on coupling, and teachers’ notions of gender equity, may inhibit the af(liation and bodily integrity of boys and girls at Dunia and throughout Tanzania. What is lost when boys and girls are only “mixing” in small groups during class lessons? How does this separa-tion further entrench gendered power dynamics or create divisions that may inhibit these central capabilities in the future, when, as one teacher noted, students eventually “mix at university and then there are a lot of problems” (ibid.). Additionally, the functionings of mixing students together may limit the capabilities that boys and girls have in enacting their own visions of education, development, and social interaction.

In a similar sense, labeling girls as perpetually shy or needing to be placed with bright students so that they “think like boys” may further perpetuate notions of girls as being de(cient intellectually, rather than actually empowering them through schooling. Merely considering girls’ attendance, participation, and performance in school, as one generally (nds in a WID approach, is not adequate for addressing much more complex relations of gender and power in classrooms, or in developing individual students’ capabilities. Additionally, it is necessary to challenge and contest the naturalization of differences between women and men and girls and boys, as one (nds in many schools—not only at this focal school in Tanzania. Providing teachers with resources on gender-sensitive pedagogy could be very bene(cial in helping to challenge established

Matthew A. M. Thomas and Allen Rugambwa · #&#

beliefs (Forum for African Women Educationalists !""-), but the data from this study suggest that teachers’ enactment of the curriculum can inhibit the pos-sibilities for empowerment. Therefore, we suggest that the capabilities approach be utilized in future research when considering how state and school-level poli-cies, gender imbalances between students and teachers, national syllabi and texts, and modes of classroom discourse restrict or enable a full enactment of capabilities for all students.

Conclusion

The macro- and micro-analyses provided through this article suggests that WID and GAD perspectives intersect and rely on different indicators of success and pursue different goals. The teachers in this study largely viewed gender equity as equal representation and participation in schooling, and to this degree, there has been some success in Tanzania. While numerous attempts were made by the teachers in this study to address gendered dynamics and patriarchal norms—thus signaling an awareness of the growing pressure for change within the social and political climes—the implementation of these strategies in the formal curriculum were constrained by their perspectives of gender empowerment, as well as by elements of school culture. Thus, the perspectives of teachers and the ideas contained in key government documents ultimately have the ability to limit the capabilities of students’ development and education. In summary, the capabilities approach to gender and education could advance the causes of empowerment for both women and men. It is evident that more must be done in Tanzania in order to ensure that both boys and girls have positive experi-ences and reach their capabilities. Merely attending school is not adequate, particularly when girls are being taught to “think like boys.”

Matthew A. M. Thomas is an adjunct faculty member at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota, and a doctoral student in comparative and international development education at the University of Minnesota. His research interests include teacher education, curriculum and pedagogy, international development, and gender. He can be reached at thom!"#$@umn.edu.

Allen Rugambwa is an assistant lecturer of physics and pedagogy at Mwenge University College of Education in Tanzania. His research interests include teacher professional development, gender, and school leadership. He can be reached at rugambwaallen@gmail.com.

Notes

1. Secondary education in Tanzania is divided into two different levels, Ordinary and Advanced. Ordinary level begins immediately after primary school and is comprised of Forms #–*. Advanced level follows Ordinary and contains Forms %–-. Graduates of

#&! · Feminist Formations !$.!

Form - are expected to continue their studies at a university. Many students, however, do not perform well enough on their Form * exams to continue beyond Ordinary.

2. In !"#", only !".- percent of secondary school teachers at nongovernment schools were female (Ministry of Education and Vocational Training !"#"a).

3. All of the quotations in this article are included verbatim and re+ect the natural speech patterns of the research participants; the authors have not made any changes to syntax or grammar.

4. In the !"## focus-group discussion, all three teachers expressed concerns about the under-achievement of boys, and the mounting attention that has been given to girls’ achievement.

5. Tanzania’s education system is highly centralized and utilizes a uniform national syllabus for each subject (chemistry, civics, and so on) that is produced by the state and distributed through the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training. All students are required to learn the same material, regardless of whether they attend public or private schools, in preparation for terminal national examinations that determine students’ future vocational and educational pathways. Both the examinations and the national syllabi unequivocally drive the education system.

6. This segregation of girls might be another indicator of teachers’ attempts to promote their learning from a WID perspective, which itself could be problematized for a variety of reasons.

7. Corporal punishment, for example, is still very common in Tanzania. Some researchers in the larger research project observed teachers carrying “caning” sticks with them to class, or actually caning students after class.

8. The only exception from the data was an understanding that female teachers would address girls’ hygiene issues, or “physiological aspects” (Peter !"#"a), as they some-times experience discomfort approaching male teachers about issues during puberty—a potential reason for girls’ shyness during academic classes.

References

Aikman, Sheila, and Elaine Unterhalter, eds. !""%. Beyond Access: Transforming Policy and Practice for Gender Equality in Education. Oxford: Oxfam Publishing.

———, Elaine Unterhalter, and Chloe Challender. !""%. “The Education MDGs: Achieving Gender Equality through Curriculum and Pedagogy Change.” Gender & Development #$(#): **–%%.

Bajaj, Monisha. !""). “Sugar Daddies and the Danger of Sugar: Cross-Generational Relationships, HIV/AIDS, and Secondary Schooling in Zambia.” In International Perspectives on Education and Society. Vol. #", Gender, Equality, and Education from International and Comparative Perspectives, ed. David P. Baker and Alexander W. Wiseman, #!$–**. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

Beetham, Gwendolyn, and Justina Demetriades. !""&. “Feminist Research Meth-odologies and Development: Overview and Practical Application.” Gender & Development #%(!): #))–!#-.

Boserup, Ester. #)&". Women’s Role in Economic Development. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Brown, Andrea. !""&. “WID and GAD in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Reappraising

Matthew A. M. Thomas and Allen Rugambwa · #&$

Gender Planning Approaches in Theory and Practice.” Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy !,(!): %&–,$.

Cohen, Louis, Lawrence Manion, and Keith Morrison. !""&. Research Methods in Education. -th ed. London: Routledge.

Dunne, Máiréad. !""&. “Gender, Sexuality and Schooling: Everyday Life in Junior Secondary Schools in Botswana and Ghana.” International Journal of Educational Development !&(%): *))–%##.

———. !""-. “Gender Violence in Schools in the Developing World.” Gender and Education #,(#): &%–),.

Focus groups. !"##. Conducted by authors, #) May.Foleni, Mr. (Dunia Secondary School focal teacher). !"#"a. Personal interview with

authors, !& July.———. !"#"b. Personal interview with authors, $ August.Forum for African Women Educationalists. !""-. “Gender Responsive Pedagogy.” Paper

presented at the Association for the Development of Education in Africa Biennial Conference on Education in Africa, !&–$# March, Libreville, Gabon.

Godson, Mr. (Dunia Secondary School focal teacher). !"#"a. Personal interview with authors, !- July.

———. !"#"b. Personal interview with authors, !& July.Heward, Christine. #))). “Introduction: The New Discourses of Gender, Education, and

Development.” In Gender, Education and Development: Beyond Access to Empow-erment, ed. Christine Heward and Sheila Bunwaree, #–#*. London: Zed Books.

Kabeer, Naila. !""%. “Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment: A Critical Analysis of the Third Millennium Development Goal.” Gender & Development #$(#): #$–!*.

Lihamba, Amandina, Rosemarie Mwaipopo, and Lucy Shule. !""-. “The Challenges of Af(rmative Action in Tanzanian Higher Education Institutions: A Case Study of the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.” Women’s Studies International Forum !)(-): %,#–)#.

Mabala, Richard. [#),,]!""&. Hawa, the Bus Driver. Reprint, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Longman.

Maxwell, Joseph. !""%. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. !nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mbilinyi, Majorie. #)),. “Searching for Utopia: The Politics of Gender and Education in Tanzania.” In Women and Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Power, Opportunities, and Constraints, ed. Marianne Bloch, Josephine A. Beoku-Betts, and B. Robert Tabachnick, !&&–)%. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.

Ministry of Education and Culture. !""*. Education Sector Development Programme: Sec-ondary Education Development Plan, $%%&–$%%'. Dar es Salaam: United Republic of Tanzania.

———. !""#. Teacher Education Master Plan: Medium-Term Strategic and Programme Framework, $%%%–$%%". Dar es Salaam: United Republic of Tanzania.

Ministry of Education and Vocational Training. !"#"a. Basic Education Statistics in Tanzania, $%%#–$%(%: Revised National Data. Dar es Salaam: United Republic of Tanzania.

———. !"#"b. Civics Syllabus for Secondary Schools: Forms I–IV. Dar es Salaam: United Republic of Tanzania.

#&* · Feminist Formations !$.!

———. !"#"c. English Language Syllabus for Secondary Schools: Forms I–IV. Dar es Salaam: United Republic of Tanzania.

———. !""&. Basic Education Statistics in Tanzania, $%%!–$%%): National Data. Dar es Salaam: United Republic of Tanzania.

Miske, Shirley, Margaret Meagher, and Joan DeJaeghere. !"#". “Gender Mainstreaming in Education at the Level of Field Operations: The Case of CARE USA’s Indica-tor Framework.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education *"(*): **#–%,.

Nussbaum, Martha. !"##. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

———. !""". “Women’s Capabilities and Social Justice.” Journal of Human Develop-ment #(!): !#)–*&.

Patton, Michael Quinn. !""!. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Peter, Mr. (Dunia Secondary School focal teacher). !"#"a. Personal interview with authors, !& July.

———. !"#"b. Personal interview with authors, $ August.Rathgeber, Eva. #))". “WID, WAD, GAD: Trends in Research and Practice.” The Journal

of Developing Areas !*(*): *,)–%"!.Robeyns, Ingrid. !""%. “The Capability Approach: A Theoretical Survey.” Journal of

Human Development -(#): )$–##*.Sen, Amartya. #))$. “Capability and Well-Being.” In The Quality of Life, ed. Martha

Nussbaum and Amartya Sen, $"–%$. Oxford: Oxford University Press.———. #))!. Inequality Reexamined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. #)),. Basics for Qualitative Research: Techniques

and Procedures for Developing Qualitative Theories. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stromquist, Nelly P. #))%. “Romancing the State: Gender and Power in Education.” Comparative Education Review $)(*): *!$–%*.

Subrahamanian, Ramya. !""%. “Gender Equality in Education: De(nitions and Measure-ments.” International Journal of Educational Development !%(*): $)%–*"&.

Thomas, Carol, and Matthew A. M. Thomas. !""). “Early Childhood Care and Edu-cation in Zambia: An Integral part of Educational Provision?” Current Issues in Comparative Education ##: -–#*.

Thomas, Matthew A. M., and Allen Rugambwa. !"#". “Fieldnotes,” * August.———, and Frances Vavrus. !"#". “Lessons from Teaching in Action: Developing,

Implementing, and Sustaining a Teacher-Training Professional Development Program.” In Supporting Quality Education in East Africa: VMM Partnership Pro-grammes, ed. Martin Desforges and Philbert Lyimo, #$%–%#. Liverpool, UK: Hope University Press.

United Republic of Tanzania. !"##. “Parliament of Tanzania: Structure.” Accessed #" January !"##. <http://www.parliament.go.tz/bunge/aboutus.php?cat=!&subcat=*>.

———. !""*. “Gender.” Accessed #" January !"##. <http://www.tanzania.go.tz/gender .html>.

Unterhalter, Elaine. !""%. “Fragmented Frameworks? Researching Women, Gender, Education, and Development.” In Beyond Access: Transforming Policy and Practice

Matthew A. M. Thomas and Allen Rugambwa · #&%

for Gender Equality in Education, ed. Sheila Aikman and Elaine Unterhalter, #%–$%. Oxford: Oxfam Publishing.

Vavrus, Frances K. !""$. Desire and Decline: Schooling Amid Crisis in Tanzania. New York: Peter Lang.

———. !""". “In Pursuit of Schooling: Girls’ Education and Economic ‘Reform’ in Tanzania.” Cultural Survival Quarterly !*($): %-–%).

———, and Leslie Bartlett. Forthcoming. “Comparative Pedagogies and Epistemological Diversity: Social and Material Contexts of Teaching in Tanzania.” Comparative Education Review.

———, and Lisa Ann Richey. !""$. “Women and Development: Rethinking Policy and Reconceptualizing Practice.” Women’s Studies Quarterly $#($–*): -–#,.

Walker, Melanie, and Elaine Unterhalter. !""&. “The Capability Approach: Its Potential for Work in Education.” In Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach and Social Justice in Education, ed. Melanie Walker and Elaine Unterhalter, #–#,. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wiggins, Grant, and Jay McTighe. !""%. Understanding by Design. !nd ed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.