Caitlin O’Loughlin

Chapter Citation: Marshall, C. & G. Anderson. (1995). Rethinking the public and private
spheres: Feminist and culture studies perspectives on the politics of education. In J. D.
Scribner & D. Layton (Eds.), The Study of Educational Politics. London: Falmer Press.

Abstract: This article uses feminist and cultural studies lenses to argue that we must refine the

focus of educational policy research by analyzing the interplay between the “public” and

“private” spheres in order to better highlight the unequal power structures that underpin policy

creation. If politics is the study of, “Who gets what when and how” (Lasswell), the masculine-

dominated politics of the country result in educational policy that is predicated on (white)

masculine models and thus privileges men in construction, implementation, and allocation.

Cultural studies and some strands of feminism seek to challenge this by acknowledging, “You

cannot dismantle the master’s house using the master’s tools” (Lourde, 1984). Current

educational policy research often falls into this trap of studying educational policies without

challenging the patriarchal structure that underpins them, and thus cannot effectively combat

issues of social oppression. Even the question of what problems become political is subject to

this gendered construct as the concerns of the private sphere are transformed into public issues

that fall under the control of mostly male politicians who “negotiate over the public nature of

issues like abortion, child care, maternity leave, adolescent pregnancy, and sexual harassment”

(Marshall, 1995). Schools and other female-dominated professions are pushed into the public

sphere and regulated by outside actors without critical thought as to whom these policies

privilege and who they harm. Educational policy research needs to situate itself so as to be able

to analyze the real-world implications of our gendered power structures if it is to rise above it.

Key Tenets/Take-aways:

 The construct of the public (male) sphere and the private (female) sphere is a useful tool

in analyzing policy as it helps to illustrate how politics and problems are gendered
 Caitlin O’Loughlin

 The question of what problems are designated as political is subject to gendered power

structures and are negotiated in the “public-private border zone” wherein social actors

and institutions translate private concerns into public policy

 The encroachment of the public sphere in education can be seen through capitalist

policies such as the voucher system and accountability systems that commodify student

achievement

Map:

Marshall’s article fits with the argument Buras (2013) makes about the need to see beyond

the presumed value-neutral world of research to understand who is actually being impacted by

policies and whose voices are silenced in their creation. Data collection and research are not

neutral, but instead are rooted within existing power structures. This is evident in the policies

discussed in both articles as well as Stovall’s article in the Handbook outlining the

Transformation and Renaissance 2010 plan in Chicago. As part of the plan, schools serving

children of color were labeled underperforming through policy and data manipulation and closed

in order to make way for new schools for the white children. Marshall’s analysis of the male

power structure in the public sphere fits with McDonnell’s (2009) explanation of policy making

in the Handbook which explains that institutions play an important role in policymaking,

including determining who is able to participate in the process. She reminds us that these,

“Arenas are never neutral in their allocation of access and power” (58). Marshall highlights the

need to explore how women are left out of these institutions, and how the institutions themselves

are predicated on systems that privilege white men. This is evident in educations where while

76% of teachers were female, only 52% of principals are women, and a scant 33% of school

superintendents are.