« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter Two Review of the literature
2.1 Introduction
The fieldwork phase of the study was informed by research into the nature and causes of gender inequalities in schools. Some of the work reviewed ( e.g. Riddell, 1996; Osler et al, 2002; Lloyd, 2005), considered gender and special educational needs; others discussed gender at particular stages of schooling (Wilkinson et al, 1999; Croxford, 1999; Biggart, 2000); whilst a number of recent projects in the UK and in Scotland (Powney, 1996; Sukhnandan, 1999; Tinklin et al, 2001) have considered gender, attainment and/or achievement across the population and the span of compulsory schooling.
The research has consistently revealed gender inequalities both in terms of participation in schooling and its outcomes. However, there is also general agreement that gender is not the only, nor even the main, source of inequality. A number of factors have been identified as contributing to gender inequalities and various strategies to address these have been identified, although not all researchers are in agreement as to which factors are the most significant nor as to which strategies should be adopted. For example, some commentators argue that some of the strategies adopted by schools can pathologise gender differences, reinforcing particular forms of masculinity at the risk of suppressing or marginalising other forms.
This review of the literature focuses on the evidence for inequality, explores possible causes and contributory factors and considers some of the strategies developed to address these within the context of schools and learning.
2.2 Inequalities in attainment
In the 1970s, concern focused on girls who, as a group, were perceived to be disadvantaged in school, as evidenced by attainment levels in general and by the low uptake of some subjects. This was, in part, a reflection of a wider political concern about inequality in the light of the gains made by the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. In the field of Women's Rights those advances were embodied in the Sex Discrimination Act (1975) and the Equal Opportunities Act (1975). Scottish local authorities were somewhat sluggish in responding and, in general, did not introduce gender equality policies until the early 1990s (Riddell, 2000). Riddell also notes that while both national advice ( SED, 1975) and local policy (Strathclyde Regional Council, 1988) identified gender as a factor in, for example, patterns of subject uptake, they did not perceive it to be a problem in terms of school practice. Rather it was the teachers' organisations, notably the Educational Institute of Scotland ( EIS, 1989, cited in Riddell, 2000) and the General Teaching Council ( GTC, 1991), that attempted to address practice. In 1989 the EIS issued a 'positive assertion against sexism' criticising contemporary practice where, they reported, boys: demanded and received a generous share of teacher time; received a disproportionate share of hands-on experience ( e.g. in science or computing); received apologies from teachers when asked to undertake non-traditional tasks; were rewarded for being assertive and advised not to act like girls; and received a disproportionate share of coveted class materials ( EIS, 1989, cited in Riddell, 2000).
In Scotland, secondary analyses of a range of quantitative data from the Scottish Qualifications Agency, Assessment of Achievement Programme, Scottish School Leavers' Survey, Scottish Executive's Statistical Bulletins and Baseline Assessment Programmes have demonstrated that, whilst levels of attainment have increased overall since the 1970s, average levels of attainment for boys are lower than for girls at all stages and across almost all areas of the curriculum (Croxford, 1999; Wilkinson et al, 1999; Tinklin et al, 2001; Tinklin, 2003; Stark and Gray, 1999). A similar picture can be observed in England and Wales (Younger et al, 2005) and internationally (Francis, 1999; Jackson, 2002).
Recent attainment statistics ( SEED, 2003a) indicate that, for all subjects and stages, the percentages of pupils attaining the expected target levels was greater for females than for males, the difference being most noticeable in the later primary and early secondary stages. In particular, it was greater for reading and writing than for mathematics. Commentators in Scotland, as elsewhere, have pointed out that comparisons across broad areas of the curriculum using average performance measures often mask the wide variation in attainment within each group; simple, generalised conclusions about boys' and girls' attainment should not be drawn from the data (Tinklin et al, 2001).
Other factors identified as influencing attainment include ethnicity (Arnot et al, 1998) and social class (Plummer, 2000). Both ethnicity and social class are factors which, combined with, and interacting with gender, are seen as having a direct bearing on achievement. Tinklin (2003) also argues that any study of attainment must take account of these, and the ways in which they interact with gender.
Researchers have also linked academic achievement with patterns of behaviour (Murphy and Ellwood, 1999; Davies and Brember, 1995), noting that, even in the early stages, there are signs of boys being more vulnerable to becoming disaffected. In addition, boys tended to be less careful about rules and more indifferent to being reprimanded. On a cautionary note, Younger et al (2005) point out that there are many boys who continue to do well in school; only a minority become disaffected. Similarly cautious, Biggart (2000) found only limited evidence to support the view that low attainment amongst Scottish school leavers was attributable to negative attitudes to education or that disaffection was a principal cause of low attainment.
Patterns of behaviour in Scottish schools are highly gendered. The SEED annual statistics on school exclusions show that secondary-aged boys are four times more likely than girls to be excluded from school, with boys in primary school ten times more likely to be excluded ( e.g.SEED, 2000: see also annual statistics at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00402-00.asp ). Boys are also more likely to be referred to Behavioural Support Services (Head et al, 2002).
The figures indicate that, while gender is a factor, other indicators can be more significant. Associated factors include the possession of a Record of Needs and/or Looked After status and various indices of poverty such as the receipt of free school meals. For example, Looked After Children are thirty times more likely to be excluded than children living with their immediate family (see http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/education/lacr-03.asp ).
2.3 Causes of gender inequality
A range of factors have been identified as contributing to gender inequality, both in and out of school.
i. In-school factors
Some of the explanations offered refer to in-school factors such as the management and ethos of the school, the content and organisation of the curriculum, assessment practices, and classroom pedagogies. Sukhnandan et al (2000), in reviewing the literature, identify two broad explanations for girls' and boys' differential performance in school. Firstly, girls and boys have different learning styles which, in turn, need different styles of teaching; and, secondly, girls and boys seem to relate differently to schooling and learning, with girls finding it easier to succeed.
In terms of attitudes to school and learning, Sukhnandan et al (2000) describe girls as being, in general, better disposed to the demands of classroom activity than boys. They place a high value on the presentation of their work; they spend more time trying to improve what they produce (MacDonald et al, 1999); they care more about the opinions of their teachers (Davies and Brember, 1995; Bray et al, 1997); they derive more enjoyment from school life (Arnot et al, 1998).
The peer group is a strong influence on boys' attitudes to school and to learning (Barber, 1994). Where the culture of the peer group is to devalue schoolwork, it is difficult for individual boys to seek and accept the public endorsement of the school. Girls, on the other hand, do not experience a conflict of loyalties between friends and school to the same degree (Barber, 1994; Macrae et al, 2000).
In contrast, there is a considerable body of literature which indicates that girls continue to be disadvantaged in school contexts. Echoing the EIS literature of 1989, Paechter (1998) argues that boys dominate time and space in classrooms, managing to attract to themselves much more teacher time and much greater 'hands-on' access to resources such as computers. Boys also dominate outdoors recreational space through activities such as football, taking up a lot of space and displacing other activities (Shilling, 1991, cited in Paechter, 1998). In addition, the effects of stereotyping subjects has been seen as impacting negatively on girls' choices by, for example, acting against their participation in those subjects perceived to be more abstract in the school context but valued by university admissions tutors (Riddell, 1992).
There is also some evidence that explanations have become gendered (Paechter, 1998; Cohen, 1998). Such explanations attribute girls' failings to factors within girls themselves, whereas boys' failings have been blamed on external circumstances. Conversely, girls' successes are seen as being due to external factors ( e.g. the success of equal opportunities policies) whereas boys' achievements are credited to internal attributes ( e.g. innate intelligence).
ii. The development of gendered identities
The literature in this area (for example, Connell, 1982; Arnot, 1991) tends to reject the notion that there are biological or pathological differences and also, in general, is critical of social learning theory which postulates that gender identities are fixed by early processes of socialisation. Although there is scepticism in the literature, these theories have had considerable impact on the development of strategies for boys and girls. Mac An Ghaill (1994) criticises earlier strategies intended to address perceived discrimination against girls, e.g. changing school texts and establishing gender-fair teaching styles, which he considers well-intentioned, if naïve. He cites Arnot (1991), who argues that such strategies were flawed by a simplistic portrayal of the issues and a perception of girls as victims. Similarly, Martino and Berrill (2003) critique New Right prescriptions for change to address the 'problems' of masculinity, particularly in schools, on the grounds that they are based upon assumptions about the 'natural' predispositions of boys that emphasise their tendency to behave, think and learn in particular ways.
Jackson (2002) argues for a multi-dimensional conceptualisation of masculinity, more complex than typical stereotyping acknowledges, and discusses how boys protect their self-worth in school settings where academic achievement is the single most important criterion in judging the worth of pupils. Caught between two competing influences on their sense of themselves - the need to conform to hegemonic masculinities and the desire to value one's own worth - Jackson identifies four strategies commonly employed by boys to protect their masculine identities: procrastination; withdrawal of effort and rejection of academic work; avoidance of the appearance of work; and disruptive behaviour.
He identifies four benefits to disruptive behaviour. In the first instance, it can increase a boy's status with his peer group, who may see him as demonstrating 'appropriate' forms of masculinity. Second, it can deflect attention away from academic performance and on to behaviour. Third, failure to achieve can be attributed to poor behaviour rather than to lack of ability and, fourth, it may sabotage the academic efforts of classmates outwith the masculine hegemony. Such explanations go some way to explaining the disproportionate number of behaviour referrals and exclusions accorded to boys.
Theories of masculinity offer a better understanding of boys' attitudes and experiences of school and facilitate a critical appraisal of the strategies used by schools to address gender inequalities. Where strategies are based on a simplistic, one-dimensional conceptualisation of masculinity, the actual effect may be to reinforce particular ways of being masculine and to ignore and undermine other ways:
Strategies 'designed to motivate under-achieving boys through football study centres and 'boy-friendly' texts' embrace the discourse of academic study as 'non-masculine' and 'feminine' and can only operate to make life more difficult for those who take up non-hegemonic identities.
(Renold, 2001)
Skelton (2001) criticises the widespread trend in schools and education authorities towards producing support materials designed to make classrooms more 'boy friendly' by endorsing one kind of masculinity - that which is aggressive, active and dominant. However, she acknowledges that research into masculinities has not been influential in developing the practical approaches so much demanded by schools.
Strategies intended to enhance the educational prospects of boys may limit the capacity of schools to value and support the growth of other, and different, forms of gendered identity. This is a significant challenge to implementing such strategies: gains made for one group may have a negative impact on the experience of others.
iii. Gender and wider social factors
A number of commentators ( e.g. Archer and Yamashita, 2003) contend that gender interacts with other aspects of social being, such as class, culture, ethnicity and sexuality, to create multiple forms of identity and to ensure that within the whole group of boys (or girls) there is a range of quite different relationships to schools and schooling. Other researchers, e.g. Mac an Ghaill, (1988) and Blyth and Milner (1996) deal with race and racism and show how schools create alienation and disaffection in unintentional but potent ways. Arnot (2003) describes how working class boys' engagement with the mental activity of schoolwork diminishes their sense of their own masculinity through the responses and views of their peer group, their family and their community. Not only is the pursuit of academic attainment an act of disloyalty, it is also a form of emasculation.
Archer and Yamashita (2003) argue that there is evidence of the 'normalisation' of particular, white, middle-class values within education which fail to recognise important aspects of working-class boys' identities. For example, they argue that policies and strategies fail to grasp the extent to which some boys 'experience strong emotional attachment to identities grounded outside of the education context' (p129). That attachment manifests itself in the deliberate cultivation of particular kinds of embodied masculinities such as forms of speech and dress, which not only attract the disapproval of schools but, in the longer run, are likely to hinder the social mobility of the boys.
From another point of view, the 'gender gap' in attainment could be understood in terms of girls' success rather than as indicative of boys' failure (Sukhnandan, 1999). The introduction of comprehensive schooling (Epstein, 1998), the removal of gender-biased selection procedures for the secondary phase of schooling (Gipps and Murphy, 1994; Croxford, 2000) and the success of equal opportunities programmes are all credited with contributing to the relative rise in the attainment of girls.
Recent literature challenges a view of gender as pathologically determined and, instead, presents a more complex account of how boys and girls interact with schooling, developing and modifying their sense of themselves in response to particular circumstances, both in school and beyond school, shaped by a whole range of social factors - social class, culture, sexuality, ethnicity. Thus, schools have to acknowledge a diversity of masculinities and femininities and validate a range of pupil identities.
2.4 Stage-specific issues
i. Early education
Gender inequalities have been identified in baseline assessments in the first year of primary school (Wilkinson et al, 1999) and there have been concerns about boys' slow start in two areas in particular: literacy and personal, emotional and social development. Literacy is seen as key to attainment across the curriculum, while boys' attitudes to school and schooling are influenced by their personal development (Murphy and Ellwood, 1997). In reviewing Early Years research, BERA (2003) noted that the major influences on young children's progress in the early years were prior attainment on entry to formal schooling and teacher expectations (Tizard et al, 1988).
ii. Subject choices
There have been many studies (Riddell, 1992; Sutherland, 1999; Croxford, 2000) detailing gendered patterns of subject uptake. Of particular concern has been the low level of female uptake of mathematics, science and engineering courses, female participation in craft and technology courses and low male uptake of modern languages. Explanations include the stereotyping of subjects by pupils, teachers and parents, perceptions of the usefulness of the subject to future lives and careers, wider social expectations and pupils' own interests.
iii. Post-school experience
Changes in forms of participation in the labour market in a post-industrial economy have brought many more women into the labour force. It is possible for more girls to envision their future lives in work as well as, or instead of, at home. In their study of post-16 transitions, Macrae and Maguire (2000: 172) noted that girls tended to have ' clearer goals and firmer ideas about their futures, regardless of race, class or academic achievement'.
2.5 Strategies in relation to learning, teaching and assessment
This section considers strategies from a range of sources including practical advice written for practitioners (Noble and Bradford, 2000; Pickering, 1995; Bleach, 1998a), research surveys of practice (Sukhnandan, 1999; Sukhnandan et al, 2000; Arnold, 1997) and articles from academic journals.
i. Teaching and learning processes
In the gender debate, a recurring question is whether boys and girls learn in different ways (Bray et al, 1997). One explanation suggests that there are different physiological patterns which lead to boys and girls learning in different ways (Gurian et al, 2001), while others express caution over simple categorisations such as 'boys' learning styles' and 'girls' learning styles' (Van Houtte, 2004; Head, 1997). It is questionable whether all boys and all girls have the same preferred learning styles, demanding different teaching approaches (Creese et al, 2004), and the wholesale adoption of such strategies may limit the learning opportunities of both girls and boys. Younger et al (2005: 11) reject the adoption of 'boy-friendly pedagogies', arguing that 'pedagogies which appeal to and engage boys are equally girl-friendly. They characterise quality teaching and as such are just as suitable and desirable for girls as for boys'.
Some broad patterns are evident in the way in which girls and boys prepare themselves for learning and engage in learning in the classroom that point to the importance of social experiences in shaping attitudes and approaches to learning. Girls' approaches to the task of organising their learning, having the right materials (Ofsted and EOC, 1996) and completing homework (Bleach, 1998b) are different from the patterns of behaviour observed in boys. Different interests and pastimes, which provide girls and boys with different language opportunities, align them in different ways to schooling and learning (Murphy and Elwood, 1997).
Against this backdrop, a range of strategies has been used to tackle issues such as boys' work habits, their need to be fully engaged in the classroom and their reported limited concentration. Key features include: activity-based and experiential tasks (Noble and Bradford, 2000; Bleach, 1998b); the development of specific skills such as reading and literacy (Bleach, 1998b) and revision and study skills (Arnold, 1997); clear, focused and time-bound tasks (Noble and Bradford, 2000; Arnold, 1997; Frater, 1998); less written and more oral work (Noble and Bradford, 2000); a competitive dimension, e.g. quizzes and games (Noble and Bradford, 2000); ICT and audio visual support and a variety of formats, e.g. diagrams and images to supplement text (Noble and Bradford, 2000; Frater, 1998). To support girls in their learning, Gipps (1996) advocates cooperative/interactive modes of learning and emphasises discussion and collaboration as well as time for quiet reflection. In addition, girls respond better to feedback that is challenging but gives precise guidance for improvement as well as praise.
Taken together, the advice given highlights the importance of varied and confident teaching which is gender-sensitive. Teachers are encouraged to adopt a repertoire of strategies, underpinned by an appreciation of different learning needs of both boys and girls.
Reports of school-based developments (Arnold, 1997; Bleach, 1998b; Frater, 1998; Noble, 1998; Penny, 1998) indicate that addressing gender inequalities encourages schools, departments and individual teachers to look closely at the teaching and learning processes for both boys and girls, with both benefiting (Sukhnandan, 1999; Penny, 1998; Noble, 1998). Though the gender gap may not be reduced, there are improved learning opportunities for both girls and boys. In further support of this approach, Younger et al (2005) found that the strategies which were most effective in addressing the achievement of boys were those developed within a holistic framework catering for the needs of all pupils.
ii. Assessment practices
National monitoring systems such as the Assessment of Performance Unit in England and Wales and the Assessment of Achievement Programme in Scotland have attempted to monitor performance by gender, but little has been made of the interaction between gender and the assessment process itself (Murphy, 2000). Some research has been undertaken, with the findings that girls tend to do less well on multiple choice type tests and better on longer written tasks (Stobart et al, 1992; Stark and Gray, 1999) and that continuous assessment, as part of the overall assessment process, may support girls in demonstrating achievement (Quinlan, 1991; Powney, 1996), particularly as they are more likely to complete it (Salisbury et al, 1999).
The nature of the assessment task is also important. Murphy (2000) questions the use of contextualised problems, arguing that efforts to make practical tasks and problems more 'real', i.e. more meaningful, are based on the premise that these would be gender neutral. Murphy found that girls and boys read tasks differently and attributed more or less relevance to a specific task or context. This has implications for the preparation of pupils for assessment and indicates that they should be exposed to a greater variety of response formats (Murphy and Elwood, 1997).
iii. Teacher expectations
The expectations of the teacher in shaping pupils' expectations and attitudes towards school and specific subjects is well charted (Arnot et al, 1998; MacDonald et al, 1999; Riddell, 1992; Stanworth, 1982; Archer, 1992). These concerns are more fully dealt with in the extended review of literature, to which reference has previously been made.
iv. Interaction patterns in the classroom
There has been an extensive range of studies internationally on gender and classroom interaction patterns (Howe, 1997). The key issues to emerge include: how the relative silence of boys and girls affects classroom dynamics; differences in the nature and quality of interaction, with teachers tending to have more negative interactions with boys; and teachers' reinforcement of gender stereotypes, both through the formal curriculum and informal interactions.
v. Pupil attitude and motivation
Boys' culture is seen as anti-intellectual, anti-educational and anti-learning, (Sukhnandan, 1999) and less study oriented than girls (Van Houtte, 2004). Bleach (1998c: 45) argues that '…boys often appear more concerned with preserving an image of reluctant involvement or disengagement'. Connell (2000) calls these 'protest masculinities'. However, not all boys share these negative attitudes towards learning, though for those boys who do engage with classroom learning there can be significant tensions (Mac an Ghaill, 1994, Reay, 2003; Younger et al (2005).
Galloway et al (1998) report that girls tend to have higher levels of task orientation (where the focus is on the achievement itself), particularly in English, than do boys. Boys have higher levels of ego orientation (the concern is their standing with other people) in both English and maths. As the authors remind us, ego orientation is not necessarily a barrier to success in education.
Recognition of the gender-differentiated patterns of both interaction in the classroom and motivation styles has implications for school behaviour policies. Davidson and Edwards (1998: 135) noted in their study of boys' achievement in their secondary school that '…the school's reward system, involving merits for good work and effort, was favouring girls' approach to work'.
2.6 Classroom organisation
Two contrasting classroom organisational strategies have been developed to tackle gender differences in achievement: the use of mixed gender groupings and single gender groupings/classes, with the latter sometimes used in a targeted way to tackle specific topics. Arnold's (1997) survey of initiatives aimed at raising boys' achievement identifies a range of strategies, with some schools using single gender settings and others adopting a variety of methods including mixing pupils in terms of ability as well as gender.
i. Mixed-gender groups
Noble and Bradford (2000) argue for a classroom seating arrangement that prevents pupils, particularly disengaged boys, gathering at the periphery of classrooms. The use of girls as a tactic in the control of boys is implicit in a range of strategies such as seating policies, mixed gender pairs and groups. Here, the function of girls is to exercise their 'civilising' influence in 'supporting' boys' learning (Raphael Reed, 1999) and '… to police, teach, control and civilise boys' (Epstein et al, 1998: 9). The expectation that at least some girls should play this role raises questions about their own opportunities. There is little systematic analysis into the effectiveness of this approach.
ii. Single gender groups and classes
The use of single gender groups has been used as an equal opportunities strategy to promote girls' participation and active engagement in areas where girls were under-represented, such as in science, technology and computing (Reay, 1990). The purpose was to create a space in which girls would actively engage in practical tasks rather than either be passive observers (Kenway et al, 1998) or take on roles such as organising and tidying up (Rennie and Parker, 1987).
The current use of single gender classes is largely a strategy to tackle boys' underachievement in secondary schools. One view popularly expressed is that during adolescence boys are distracted by the presence of girls (Woodhead, 1996) and engage in behaviours that detract from their learning. However, in some instances this strategy has been adopted to support the learning of both boys and girls. Warrington and Younger (2004) identified a number of reasons for adopting single gender teaching, including improving girls' opportunities, addressing boys' underachievement and behaviour problems and reducing 'laddish' behaviour. The impact depends to a certain extent on whether the focus is on pupils in the 'top' or 'bottom' sets.
A number of schools in Warrington and Younger's study talked about different teaching and learning strategies for boys' and girls' groups, with arguments very similar to those already discussed. Considerably fewer strategies were suggested for girls, most of which drew on perceptions of girls' strengths or preferences. One school used Gardner's framework of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1993) to shape variation in experiences, rather than gender. In some schools there were modifications to curriculum materials to accommodate perceived differences in interest between boys and girls.
The issue of single gender classes is one of the most contested. Some studies have been inconclusive (Rowe et al, 1996; Rowe, 1998), while others found it difficult to unravel the impact from other factors such as teaching practices (Warrington and Younger, 2004). In the Warrington and Younger study, where schools reported improved results, all staff were involved, enthusiastic and committed to the strategy and considerable planning preceded implementation. In addition, pupils and parents were consulted and involved. They also identified some negative effects. For example, some boys' 'laddish' behaviour increased and in six schools the worsening or lack of improvement in boys' behaviour led to single gender teaching being abandoned. The researchers concluded that a system of single gender classes is 'no panacea for the problem of poor behaviour, disaffection and lack of achievement' (Warrington and Younger, 2004, p348).
Further efforts to ensure 'effective' role models by providing male teachers teaching boys and female teachers teaching girls may only serve to reinforce gender stereotypes (Kenway et al, 1998), particularly reinforcing a 'laddish' culture in boys-only classes (Mills, 2000) and further disadvantaging girls. Jackson (2002: 44) discerned a number of differences between all-girls classes and all-boys classes: '... girls are liberated by girls-only space' and there was a more relaxed and supportive environment while, in contrast, '… the climate of boys' groups was reported to be more competitive and aggressive'.
While there is evidence that single-sex classes can be beneficial for both boys and girls, for some subjects (Younger et al, 2005), these need to be accompanied by a critical stance and to challenge practices that reinforce stereotypical gendered roles.
iii. Subject-specific single gender classes
There are examples of single gender classes used in relation to specific areas of the curriculum, e.g. personal development, sex education, physical education and, to a lesser degree, evidence of schools working on gender awareness as part of the development of gender equity.
The findings, however, are not always clear. In a recent survey on sexual health in Scotland, it was found that some children and young people would prefer single gender classes, while others felt they learned more from mixed classes, especially on relationship issues (Children in Scotland, 2003). In a case study conducted by Airnes (2001) on the use of single gender classes in biology, boys reported there was no difference in working in single gender classes, whereas girls reported that they found this a better working environment. Airnes concludes that it may be of benefit for pupils to work separately in certain circumstances, for instance on practical work or sensitive topics in the syllabus.
2.7 A whole school perspective
Addressing gender inequality is a whole school issue. A key question therefore is: how, within the organisational context of a school, can changes in practice be introduced and sustained to reduce inequality? Four specific areas for attention were identified in the literature: school effectiveness and improvement; school evaluation/inspection; policy development; and role models and mentoring.
i. Gender and school effectiveness and school improvement
School effectiveness and improvement has been a dominant theme in Scottish education for some years. The research in this area has, however, paid little attention to the issue of gender in relation to the features of effectiveness (Duffield, 2000). While issues of 'school mix' (or social class) have been considered in sampling procedures, they have not been used to investigate inequity across social groupings. Indeed, one of the criticisms of the school effectiveness and improvement movement has been the lack of attention to equality issues. For example, Rea and Weiner (1996) are critical of school effectiveness research upon which policies about school evaluation are based, because gender, along with other social factors, is rendered invisible.
ii. Managing change
Myers (1992), in reviewing the range of national and local gender-related initiatives since the passing of the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975, stresses the importance of understanding how change can be brought about if we wish to reduce gender inequalities. Myers identifies four basic aspects of managing change: leadership; staff development; policy making; and monitoring and evaluation.
Regarding leadership, Ofsted and the EOC (1996) found that schools successful in providing equal opportunities for both boys and girls were characterised by a headteacher with strong commitment to developing equal opportunities initiatives. Senior management also had an important role to play in highlighting the importance of the issue and giving it legitimacy. Distributed forms of leadership in taking initiatives forward were also seen as effective; particularly when such initiatives have the clear public support of the headteacher.
In Rudduck's (1994) study of the development of gender policies in secondary schools, a critical aspect was the tenacity and willingness of gender leaders to sustain the change, and their readiness to think through established and accepted practices and patterns of behaviour in school. She noted that some colleagues might be 'disturbed' into change. This notion of 'disturbing' staff indicates that bringing about change in this area in a school setting can be problematic. In the first instance, it is necessary to acknowledge that gender is a problem. Secondly, schools and classrooms are places where routines exist partly for convenience and partly because this is the means of managing a very complex process; any real change will not be brought about by the simple substitution of one practice for another. Thirdly, the nature of the impact of gender and the conflicting views held by those involved in schools is undoubtedly controversial. The context and the potential for conflict were evident in Rudduck's (1994) study of how secondary schools develop policies.
iii. Monitoring and using data
The use of evidence can be critical in bringing about change. Davies (1990) advocates robust systems to gather and analyse data on gender performance. A similar approach is stressed in the report The Gender Divide (Ofsted and EOC, 1996), where the use of information technology to analyse the data collected within schools is advocated.
Initiatives developed in one school cannot be grafted readily on to another school without a close consideration of the situation as it exists within the school. Staff need to identify patterns of underachievement and other areas where gender inequalities occur, e.g. exclusions and/or attendance, to determine whether particular pupils are at risk and to identify the contributory factors (Sukhnandan, 1999; Arnold, 1997). Once specific strategies have been implemented, monitoring and evaluation is crucial to assess their impact in schools (Education Review Office, 2000).
It is on the basis of data gathered that school leaders begin to challenge established practices, both within classrooms and around the school, and to initiate change.
iv. Understandings of gender and policy making
The school is a social context and it contributes to the process of socialisation, including the formation of gender identity. This needs to be borne in mind when discussing the implications of specific strategies for the construction of gender in the school. There is a tension here. On the one hand there is a need to acknowledge the multiplicity of social factors in educational achievement while, at the same time, a need to recognise the importance of the issue of gender and a need to work towards gender equity practices that embrace the needs of both male and female pupils.
An important aspect of initiating and sustaining change is the development of a deep and more critical understanding of gender with staff and possibly pupils. Commentators point to the need for approaches which allow different forms of masculinities to be explored by boys and girls in relation to femininities (MacNaughton, 2000; Skelton, 2001; Frosh et al, 2003). A focus on gender relations, and, further, on the relationship of gender to class and ethnicity, will enable young people themselves to reflect upon the structures of power in their own classrooms. Those on the margins, through for example, sexuality or disability, may even be empowered to challenge the disparagement pervading their everyday experience of school (Renold, 2004).
Skelton (2001) argues that the basis upon which schools develop policies in relation to gender equity is crucial. She suggests that staff and pupils need to consider the images of masculinity and femininity that children bring to school, the dominant images reflected by the school itself, the role models that the school wants of its teachers and the kinds of initiatives, etc. that encourage staff and pupils to reflect upon issues of gender.
v. Policy making
The relationship between school policy and everyday practice in the classroom is a critical one in bringing about genuine change.
Rudduck (1994) highlights the importance, at policy level, of examining the values that underpin individual policies. Hill and Cole (1999) make a distinction between equal opportunities policies and egalitarian policies. Equal opportunities policies, they argue, are based on a meritocratic idea where 'able pupils' are allowed the opportunity to achieve and gain from this achievement in a stratified society. On the other hand, egalitarian policies are designed to challenge structured inequalities. This distinction is not necessarily clear in policies and there is a tension between enabling able pupils to overcome social barriers (such as gender, social class, poverty, ethnicity) in order to achieve through the school system and policies that emphasise achievement for all.
A critical step is the involvement of staff and other stakeholders in debate on the significance of gender, equality and inclusive education. Corson (1998: 17) argues for critical policy making and proposes a process of genuine participative policy development which includes not just staff (the predominant model in Rudduck's case studies), but also pupils, parents and members of the wider community.
To be effective, a policy has to be complemented by a range of strategies and initiatives, implemented in a coherent way. School leaders, alongside staff and other stakeholders such as pupils and parents, have to agree on goals, co-ordinate activities and resources in a focused way, and gather data to monitor and evaluate progress. (For an example of such an approach, see Traves [2000], quoted in Baxter [2001].)
An alternative approach is to adopt an inquiry-based model of managing change. Routinely gathered data can provide the starting point for such an approach and there are examples of where this has been effective, e.g. the small scale study by Wikely and Jamieson (1996). This approach can also highlight the complex range of environmental and other factors that come into play. Here the approach adopted inquiry-based methods similar to those advocated by Corson (1998), i.e. gathering views from both pupils and staff and using these to develop strategies to tackle issues.
vi. Role models
Over recent years, the teaching force in secondary schools has become increasingly female; women have always been in the majority in primary schools. This has raised the issue of a lack of male role models for boys at various levels in the education system. This is a reversal of earlier concerns over the lack of role models for girls in previously male-dominated areas such as management and science.
There have been efforts to attract more men into teaching, especially into primary schools, but these have been criticised for reinforcing gender stereotypes (Burn, 2001; Pepperell and Smedley, 1998). While there is good reason for increasing male recruitment on the grounds of wider societal equality, claims that the recruitment of minority groups, whether on the grounds of gender or ethnicity, will improve performance are challenged. There are dangers in adopting crude ideas of 'boy friendly' schooling such as the proportion of male teachers and the use of boys' culture (Carrington and Skelton, 2003; Ashley, 2002). Ashley's study demonstrated that the qualities of the teacher were more important than the gender.
vii. Mentoring
At school level, there is some evidence that mentoring is effective in dealing with boys' underachievement. Mentoring comes in different forms, such as the use of peer counselling (Ryder, 1998), reading buddies (Noble, 1998) and subject-specific support (Penny, 1998). Sukhnandan et al (2000) found that schools adopted mentoring for a range of reasons. They targeted specific pupils, frequently underachieving boys, to tackle motivation and confidence and to support pupils on the borderline in terms of predicted examination results. Mentoring schemes resulted in a number of positive outcomes for both boys and girls. However, there were constraints, most notably time and a lack of sufficient numbers of trained mentors. In some schools this meant that participation was limited and available largely to boys, thus excluding girls from what could be a valuable source of support. Approaches that focused on the individual pupil and were supported by coherent systems involving target setting and mentoring were found to be most effective in transforming and sustaining improvements in achievement.
viii. School ethos and participation in development
School culture and ethos is an important factor. In Scotland, the School Ethos Network has been active in promoting the development of whole school strategies to establish and enhance a positive ethos, strategies to promote positive behaviour and to create greater pupil participation in the community life and decision-making processes of school. While a significant number of case studies have been reported ( e.g. Munn, 1999; Murray and Closs, 2000; Murray, 2002), limited attention has been given to gender.
Arnold's (1997) survey of English initiatives emphasises the need to involve pupils and their parents in both data gathering and discussing policy development. Parents were also seen as having an important role to play both in supporting boys' learning and in contributing to public activities to raise the profile of gender.
2.8 Vocational education
There is a very limited literature on gender and vocational education within school education. Early initiatives tended to focus on encouraging more girls to enter traditional male areas ( e.g. Girls into Science and Technology, Women into Science and Engineering) and equal opportunities were a key aspect of the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative (Howieson, 1990). The literature discussed children's perceptions of occupational role and gender. The intention was to widen aspirations, particularly those of girls into what were regarded as traditionally male areas, but also to a lesser degree opening the possibilities for boys for entry into caring occupations.
Early studies identified gender-related patterns of post-school careers in the UK as well as other countries such as Australia and the United States (Powers and Wojtkiewicz, 2004). Evidence indicated that the limited nature of girls' aspirations was a key problem and that low aspirations were linked to low educational attainment.
A pattern of gender division in the take-up of occupations is evident in Scotland. The EOC (1998) noted clear patterns of gender stereotyping in entry into different types of training schemes. A more recent Scottish study by Howieson (2003) revealed similar findings. Gender differences were evident in the post-school experiences of early leavers, with male leavers achieving better outcomes despite having lower average attainment.
The most comprehensive discussion of vocational education is a paper from the Equal Opportunities Commission (1999), ' Gender issues in vocational education and training and workplace achievement of 14-18 year olds: an EOC perspective'. Though girls' attainment has risen, there still seems to be a gender pattern in relation to the choice of options, entry into training and employment. They concluded that changes within schools had made little impact on choices of career and post-school destinations, which were still highly gendered. Further, the EOC (1999) argue that mainstream systems reinforce rather than challenge traditional patterns of gender stereotyping and segregation. Croxford and Raffe (2005) found gender-differentiated patterns in science and technology from S3 in secondary education in Scotland.
The EOC identified a range of factors as contributing to the continuation of gender differentiated patterns. These included: careers guidance; school options guidance; peer pressure; societal stereotyping; 'washback' into schools and colleges of employment patterns; parent views; and students' own predilections. They advocate an open focus on gender alongside changes such as opening up option choices in schools.
One related area in school-based vocational education is that of work experience. Mackenzie (1997) noted the impact of gender on work placements, with boys more likely to have placements in engineering, mechanics and construction and girls in clerical and caring occupations. Some girls seeking non-traditional placements in e.g. mechanics were not taken seriously. Differences in the source of influence were found, with girls more influenced by parents and boys by their peers, particularly in circumstances where caring placements were regarded as 'women's work'. In a more recent study, Hamilton (2003) notes that parental influence in choice of work placements often reinforces traditional choice, although he did note that more boys were now involved in placements in primary and pre-five establishments.
2.9 Conclusion
Discussions of gender issues in the 1970s perceived girls as disadvantaged, while more recently the focus has been on boys' underachievement relative to girls. Similarly, 'solutions' to gender-related disadvantage have developed from straightforward prescriptions for organisational change through timetabling, subject choice and the way in which the curriculum is presented, e.g. 'girl-friendly' science approaches, to more complex theories about the nature of masculinities, in particular, and their relationship to other forms of social identity. The issues are more complex than was first considered and more strategies for addressing gender-related disadvantage are becoming available.
Developing gender policies and practice requires that gender issues are considered in all aspects of school development, as well as being a specific focus pursued through discrete strategies. Such permeating approaches might be mirrored in local authority and national education initiatives. The invisibility of gender in many policy documents has been surprising, given the highly gendered patterns of pupil experience.
Also noted here has been the influence of the broader social and economic context of schooling. Schools are sites where gender identities and relationships are formed, but these are also shaped by other factors such as social class, 'race' and ethnicity. Young people will have a sense of their futures and a view of the kind of men and the kind of women they will (and can) become, related to their wider experience in the family and in the community.
Having discussed how gender inequalities are made manifest and some of the strategies that have been advocated for addressing them in schools, we turn to consider how some schools have tried to implement such strategies and the impact that they have made.
The review of the literature relating to gender inequalities was intended to provide the basis for analysing strategies in use in Scottish schools. The key elements that form the basis of the analysis are:
i. Background of the school(s) involved
ii. Initial impetus and funding
iii. The implementation of the strategy/ies
iv. The impact
In the case studies section of this report, each is discussed in relation to these elements and the issues raised in the literature.
« Previous | Contents | Next »