The essay set for week 13 asks you to critically analyse gender as an organising concept. There are some areas of school which may be quite explicitly organised on gender lines; subjects studied, uniforms, single-sex or co-ed classrooms. Other results of time spent in school might be attributed to a more implicit organisation by gender – teachers’ attitudes to the presentation of work for example. What happens when this moves into the world of employment? How is gender implicit or explicit in the organisation of the institution you choose to work in and how does it link with the experience of schooling?

 

Under achieving boys / over achieving men

As men tend to be more successful in the workplace why should we be so concerned about the discourse of ‘failing boys’ in schools?

There is, however a danger in linking the ‘underachieving’ boys in school with the ‘overachieving men’ in business, if we think in terms of masculinities  it is clear that while some boys may under achieve they will not necessarily be the same group who go on to be stunningly successful. There are not many Richard Bransons or Alan Sugars around. If it is assumed that all boys will inevitably do better than all girls in work after school there is the possibility that problems within school associated with gender will proliferate.

 

This concern is further addressed in the 1999 Rowntree Foundation report

Underachieving young men preparing for work: A report for practitioners by Trefor Lloyd, Joseph Foundation. www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/1842630903.pdf

 )

Fifty-one young men (aged 14 to 15) in year 10 participated in a classroom and workplace-based programme of 30 hours delivered within three South London schools. The school had identified them as being 'at risk' and all were underachieving in at least part of the curriculum. The programme concentrated on practical approaches and methods, and aimed to develop skills (and attitudes) essential to the rapidly changing workplace. Working With Men develops innovative projects, especially with young men, in the areas of health, work, violence, fatherhood and identity. Working With Men also develops curriculum materials, produces publications, offers consultancy and training to other professionals wanting to develop their work with boys and young men.

 

 

This moves the debate about the construction of masculinity out of the class room and into adult life. Much has been written about the idea of the glass ceiling – the metaphor for women’s apparent lack of success in traditionally male high status roles:

For example a 2004 Fawcett Society Report on women working in the criminal justice system observed

• One woman out of 12 judges in the House of Lords

• Five women out of 43 chief constables of police

• 18 women out of 42 chief officers of probation

• Seven women out of 42 chief crown prosecutors

• 31 women out of 138 prison governors

(http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Report%20of%20the%20Commission%20on%20Women%20and%20the%20Criminal%20Justice%20System%20March%202004(2).pdf)

 

Look at the Fawcett Society website http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/

 for more up to date information and also access a report his year considering the embedded inequality of the pay gap in terms of stereotypes

http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Equal%20Pay%20Where%20Next%20supplementary%20pack.pdf

 

So, there appear to be several strands to the discussion ‘Does gender matter?’

 

In schools

Do boys and girls learn differently? – and the whole co-education debate that hangs on this.

Are schools and the education system itself more girl-friendly?

Do assumptions about gender related characteristics and hegemonic masculinity hinder boys’ progress in schools?

 

In the workplace

Why are there more men in higher professional positions than women?

Is the workplace and employment legislation more man-friendly?

 

Of course underlying this is the ongoing debate as to whether gender is socially constructed and therefore gender roles and expectations of these roles may change, or, is there an element of essential ‘femininity’ or ‘masculinity’ that makes these well worn debates irrelevant?  Do we change school culture or work culture?

 

As gender theorising becomes more sophisticated we also have to take note of the relationship between overarching constructions of ‘man’ or ‘woman’ and the individual men and women and the production of their individual identities.

 

Apprenticeships

 

There has recently been a revived interest in the notion of an apprenticeship which offers training within the workplace see  http://www.apprenticeships.org.uk/ (note the ratio of girls to boys on the site – there seems to be a real commitment to gender equality in a traditionally male sector)

Historically the notion of an apprenticeship to lifelong investment in a ‘trade’ was seen as typically male. Andrew Parker has recently noted the heavily gendered nature of football apprenticeship – he concluded that this was a site where masculinities were actually created (as much as confirmed) and that the male community of practice was actually part of their learning experience. He quotes from Tolson at the beginning of his article ‘For every man, the outcome of his socialization is his entry into work. His first day at work signifies his ‘initiation’ into the secretive, conspiratorial solidarity of working men’ (Tolson, 1977: p.4 cited in Parker, 2006: 687). The movement into paid work is seen as the ‘core constituent of masculine identity’ (Parker, 2006: 689). Changes in the economic structure of the UK  have of course significantly changed traditional expectations of employment patterns.

As a highly gender specific occupation in the UK professional football highlights the informal aspects of learning gender within the workplace:

‘whilst being obliged to consider the occupational standards espoused by club officials, trainees also felt compelled to adhere to the social expectations of the hyper masculine cultures in which they loved and worked’ , ‘trainees were keen to learn about, and be integrated into, the lives and lifestyles of their professional peers’ (Parker, 2006: 692)

 

Career choice

Last week we discussed the idea of the ‘professional’ and how an apparently gender neutral term can be seen to be highly gendered in its assumptions.

We can do the same with the notion of a career. How might we define a ‘career’ as opposed to a ‘job’?

Full time employment

Training

Hierarchy of job titles within the profession

Promotion within a clear framework.

 

Until relatively recently we might have argued that this model excluded women if they wished to take time out for domestic responsibilities. Phil Hodkinson and Andrew Sparkes (1997) coined the phrase ‘careership’ designed to broaden the concept to include the portfolio career with which we are becoming familiar. This has much in common with the model suggested in the Rowntree Foundation document above. Paid work then becomes something actively part of our construction of our individual identity.

 

As what we ‘do’ is increasingly linked with who we ‘are’ then gender, whether defined as constructed or essential, is clearly highly significant.

 

The concept of ‘career’ may be understood as one which refers to a life pattern. It is defined as a progression through adult life which can include time spent in and out of the workplace. Carol Shakeshaft has identified the androcentric nature of accepted definitions of career which only include professional activity free from any domestic responsibility.

 

Gendered career choice

The combination of changes in education, employment opportunities and the sense of a new beginning following the Second World War may have contributed to the interest in patterns of career choice which developed amongst psychologists, sociologists and educationalists. In the United States, in the 1950s, Donald Super and Eli Ginzburg considered career choice from a psychological perspective. These studies posited a developmental model of career choice in which young people passed through different stages in their decision making process, moving from fantasy glamour occupations towards more pragmatic decisions – this model was apparently un-gendered. Is it still a relevant analysis?

 

Interest in ‘occupational choice’, ‘career development’ or ‘career decision making’ grew from the 1950s into the 1970s and extensively referenced and built upon the theories of Super and Ginzberg. Home and school influences were the most often cited, with social class also being a deciding factor. Gender appears to have been left out of the equation, although the underlying assumption was that career choice was implicitly more relevant to boys than girls. In their discussion of home influence, Hayes and Hopson voiced concern that sex roles learnt in the family setting ensured that: ‘girls will be learning roles which are at least a generation out of date’. As late as 1981 Teresa Keil demonstrated how tenacious were notions that expectations of domesticity constrained girls’ choices: ‘The Romantic idea of marriage and family helps to modify girls’ achievement motivation and their career aspirations’. (Keil, 1981: p.181). One of the presentations last week by Joanne Baker  (2010) 'Great expectations and post-feminist accountability: young women living up to the 'successful girls' discourse', Gender and Education, 22: 1, 1 — 15 also tries to tease out ways in which girls’ career ambitions can be constrained by outside factors.

 

In 1963 a study at Birkbeck college invited girls and boys to write imaginary essays as if they were retired and reflecting on their life history. A surprising number of girls reconciled their desire for domesticity with their desire to engage in paid employment by killing off their husbands (in the stories!) at an early age! (Veness, 1962).

 

In 2005 there was legislation to ensure boys and girls have access to the same curriculum and therefore the same opportunities to continue into further or higher education. Equal opportunities legislation in the workplace ensures equal pay and legislation on maternity and paternity leave and increasingly places responsibility on both parents.

But

We are still left with the conundrum of understanding the part that gender plays in the construction of our individual identity and in our expectation of the roles that will be played out in our adult lives. 

 

 

 

 Ginzberg, E., Ginzberg, S., Axelred, S., Herma, J. (eds) (1951) Occupational Choice: An Approach to General Theory, New York: Columbia University Press.

Hayes, J. and Hopson, B. (1972) Careers Guidance: The Role of the School in Vocational Development, London, Heinemann.

Hodkinson, P. and Sparkes, A. (1997) ‘Careership: A Sociological Theory of Career Decision Making’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18 (1) pp.29-44.

Hopson, B. and Hayes, J. (eds.) (1968) The Theory and Practice of Vocational Guidance, Oxford: Pergamon

Keil, T. (1981) ‘Social Structure and Status in Career Development’, in Watts, A., Super, D. and Kidd, J., Career Development in Britain: Some Contributions to Theory and Practice, Cambridge: CRAC

Parker, A. (2006) Lifelong learning to labour: apprenticeship, masculinity and communities of practice’ British Educational Research Journal, 32 (5) 687-701.

Shakeshaft, C. (1987) Women in Educational Administration, London: Sage

Super, D. (1957) The Psychology of Careers: An Introduction to Vocational Choice, New York: Harper Row

Veness, T. (1962) School Leavers: Their Aspirations and Expectations, London: Methuen.