Gender and Education

Changing aspirations

Let's look at how women's aspirations have changed over time.

Sue Sharpe (1994)

Sharpe did interviews with girls in the 1970s and in the 1990s. She was interested in their aspirations and values in life. She found that in the 1970s, girls predominantly valued finding love, having a husband, a family and a home to direct. These attitudes seemed to have changed.

In the 1990s, girls valued career achievement and financial independence highly.

Fuller (2011)

Fuller (2011) did a similar study in 2011 and found that educational success and the ability to enter a professional career was an essential part of girls’ identity.

What more needs to be done?

Liberal feminists point out that complete equality in education and in the workplace is yet to be achieved. They argue that equality of opportunity-policies can further the cause, and the challenging of sexist attitudes and stereotypes in school can also contribute to the development of equality.

Radical feminists, on the other hand, claim that policies and changing attitudes can do very little for women and girls if the system remains patriarchal, like it is now. They highlight the numerous times and ways girls are subject to sexism in schools, how girls’ educational achievement is underrepresented and that male teachers are more likely to be appointed as heads of educational institutions.

Gender and education: cultural factors

There are further aspects and explanations of girls' higher achievement in school.

Changing job opportunities

Sociologists predict that in the future, more women will be in paid-employment than men. It is also predicted that the number of traditionally ‘male’ professions within manufacturing and engineering will be decreasing, while the number of traditionally ‘female’ jobs within the service sector will be increasing. Women might be needed more in the job market than men.

Legal changes and equal opportunities policies

Several legal changes have taken place that have changed the relationship between gender and education.

The Sex Discrimination Act of 1975

This act made the negative discrimination against any individual based on their sex in education illegal. It raised awareness of the overwhelming dominance of men in science subjects, for example.

Kelly (1981) found that textbooks presented images of mainly male scientists; there were very few female role models for school children interested in pursuing a career in science, and the classes were dominated by male teachers and students. She concluded that this resulted in sciences being perceived as ‘male’ subjects.

To improve the imbalance, national projects were set up to promote science subjects among girls and support those who wanted to pursue high education in science.

The introduction of the National Curriculum

The National Curriculum dictates a set material for schools and students in the UK. Certain subjects, like science, are compulsory for everyone. As a result, boys and girls have equal access to the same subjects.

Why do girls and boys choose different subjects?

Let's see how gender truly affects subject choices by looking at the following table. The information has been taken from Joint Council for Qualifications (2016).

Table 2 - A-Level subject choice by gender, 2016. Source: Joint Council for Qualifications

Understanding the reasons behind different subject choices between girls and boys may help us further understand the relationship between gender and education.

External factors

Murphy and Elwood (1999) argued that gender socialisation, which happens in the family, is one of the reasons for girls and boys choosing certain subjects in school. The way parents treat their children and the expectations they set up for them can later shape their interests in school.

In-school factors

Mitsos and Browne (1998) pointed to in-school factors that stand behind the gender division when it comes to school subjects. The four most important factors are:

• Gender stereotypes in textbooks

• The lack of female role models in science and mathematics textbooks

• Gender stereotyping by teachers

• The domination of the science equipment in the classroom by male teachers and students

Single-sex and mixed schools

Some sociologists argue that single-sex schools are beneficial for girls’ development. They seem especially supporting for girls in science subjects.

There has been experiment of single-sex classrooms in mixed schools. This means that girls and boys were separated for certain subjects during their education. The aim was to eliminate the disruptive behaviour of the other sex from learning.

One of the key educational theorists of the UK, Alan Smithers - who is also a Professor of Education at Buckingham University - argued that single-sex classrooms and single-sex schools are not as beneficial for girls as others think. As the matter of fact, he says, it makes no difference to the attainment of girls.

Fig. 1 - According to Smithers, same-sex classrooms are not as beneficial for students educational development as other sociologists believe.

Smithers points out that people think single-sex schools are better because they do well at the league tables. However, it is not the single-sex nature of them which makes them do well, but the socio-economic background of their students.

Single-sex schools tend to be independent grammar schools, where the pupils are from middle-class, wealthy backgrounds. Smithers refers to the results of a Scottish study published in 2006, which proved that singe-sex classes do not result in better educational achievement of boys. Rather, it led to greater indiscipline.

Gender and education: social issues

Statistics show that both girls’ and boys’ educational achievement are increasing, however not at the same rate. The rate of girls’ educational success is increasing faster than that of boys. Why is that?

Research of Harris et al. (1993)

Harris et al. did research on the educational achievement of 16-year-old students with working-class backgrounds. They found that:

• Boys are suffering from low self-esteem and poor motivation

• Girls are much more willing to struggle to get through difficulties in their studies

• Girls are more hard-working on the long term, while boys get distracted much more easily

• Boys find it harder to organise their time effectively when doing coursework

• Girls spend more time on homework

• Girls are more concerned about getting qualifications for their future careers than boys

Things have changed since Harris’s research in the 1990s. However, there are new studies suggesting further explanations - some similar to Harris’ findings - for the increasing educational success of girls.

Gender and education: impact of external and in-school factors on boys

Let us look at three different explanations as to why boys may not be achieving at a rate as fast as girls.

School environment

Moir and Moir (1998) argued that educational institutions have become too ‘girl friendly’, which means that they don’t suit boys and their need in terms of educational development. They point to the emphasis on verbal skills, and to the non-competitive environment that schools aspire to as examples of ‘girl friendly’ education.

Self-image

Katz (2000) claims that peer pressure and the fear of being teased for studying contributes to boys’ underachievement and lack of effort in school. Katz also argued that boys nowadays see a lot of incompetent male role models in the media and advertising, which undermines their self-esteem.

Low self-esteem is linked to the disappearance of traditionally male jobs and to boys being uncertain about their futures and lacking motivation.

The meaning of masculinity

James (2000) argued that while women reassessed their role in society and decided that education and paid employment is a significant part of their lives, men are more uncertain about what their role in society is. The meaning of masculinity is being reassessed.

James argues that nowadays being good at school is not necessarily seen as the most masculine feature, especially among the working-class, so boys tend not to work hard for educational success.