Gender Inequality in the British National Curriculum - Essay Example

 Gender Inequality in the Education System and the National Curriculum This essay will explore the National Curriculum and will discuss gender inequality within the education system. Gender is socially constructed in the sense that differences in the behaviour of females and males are learned rather than being an inevitable result of biology, and from the moment we are born society brings in the act of gender differences. I will discuss about inequality within the education system during the past and how it has affected the students and pupils. I will then explore the inequality in the National Curriculum and discuss the changes that have taken place to make the differences there are in the system today. In Britain, free compulsory education in formal institutions staffed by full-time professionals began in Foster’s Education Act 1870, although attendance was not made compulsory until the 1880 Education Act. Education became important in order to maintain social disorder and the society needed boys for future industrial service so in order for this to happen, boys needed to be educated, which was identified as ‘The Apprentice boy model of the education’ (Ainley 1999). During this period there was a great deal of gender inequality, female students were always disadvantaged. Even in the late 1990’s most females did not see education leading them far in life, “girls set priorities were love, marriage, husband, children, jobs and careers more or less in that order” (Sharpe 1976). Key stage tests have been brought about by the British national curriculum whereby pupils are usually assessed at various stages throughout their education. This National Curriculum was introduced in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to be used national wide by primary and secondary state school following an Education Reform Act 1988. The main aim of the National Curriculum was to ensure that all pupils cover certain basic materials and later on entire teaching time was covered as the curriculum grew in majority of state schools. (National Curriculum Online, 2006) There are four key stages in the National Curriculum and they include: key stage 1, 2, 3 and 4. Key stage 1 This stage includes children between the ages of 5-7 years. The key stage is the legal term for the two years of schooling in England and Wales known as year 1 and 2. The students in this stage follow 12 areas of education programme. In year 2 at the age of 7 years, the pupils are assessed with a test known as SAT’s that covers English, Science and Mathematics. The subjects this stage is supposed to cover include: English Mathematics Science Information and Communication Technology Design Technology History Geography Modern Foreign Language Art and Design Music Physical Education Religious Education (Education Act. 2002, 2002) Key stage 2 This stage includes children between the ages of 7-11 years. The key stage is the legal term for the four years of schooling in England and Wales known as Year 3, Year 4, Year 5 and Year 6. In this stage, covers pupils during junior schools although in some cases part of this stage fall in a middle while the other part falls through primary school. In this stage, the pupils follow the same areas programme of education just like of key stage 1. In Year 6 at the age of 11 years, the pupils are tested as part of the national programme of national curriculum tests known as SAT’s. These tests covers English, Mathematics and Science and the tests are externally marked and the results published in DFES performance table. (Education Act. 2002, 2002) Key stage 3 This includes children between the ages 11-14 years. The key stage is the legal term for the three years of schooling in England and Wales known as Year 7, Year 8 and Year 9. The stage covers pupils during the first three years of secondary education although in some cases parts of all the stage fall in middle or high school. Pupils in this stage cover 15 subjects namely: English Mathematics Science Information and Communication Technology Design Technology History Geography Modern Foreign Language Art and Design Music Physical Education Citizenship Sex Education Careers Education Religious Education The Education Reform Act emphasis that Sex Education must be provided in accordance with the local policy. A national curriculum tests is conducted at the end of Year 9 at the age of 14 years Known as SAT’s and the test covers English, Mathematics, Science and ICT. The test is marked externally and the results published in DFES performance tables. (Education Act. 2002, 2002) Key stage 4 This stage includes children between the ages 14-16 years. The key stage is the legal term for the two years of schooling in England and Wales known as Year 10 and Year 11. The act emphasis that students in this stage should cover the following subjects: English Mathematics Science Information and Communication Technology Physical Education Citizenship Sex Education Careers Education Religious Education Work-related learning It is also a statutory duty for the school to provide an optional programme of education in the following areas: The Arts Design and Technology The Humanities Modern Foreign Languages In year 11 at the age of 16 years a range of external examination are conducted and most frequently is the GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) exams And other qualifications such as National Vocational Qualifications. The examination is set by an Examination Board and the results published as part of the Department for Education and Skills' Performance Tables. (Education Act. 2002, 2002) However, the curriculum does not apply to independent schools that are free to set their own curriculum. The national curriculum ensures that all Local Education Authorities states schools are run by a common curriculum. According to the Education Reform Act 1988, Basic Curriculum of Religious Education and the National Curriculum are supposed to be taught to all state school students. (National Curriculum Online, 2006) The National Curriculum was designed with two main principals namely: That the Curriculum should provide opportunities to all pupils i.e. to learn and to achieve. That the curriculum should prepare students for experience, responsibilities and opportunities of life beside promoting students’ moral, spiritual, social and cultural development. (National Curriculum Online, 2006) There have been debates amongst educators about gender-related issues throughout the 20th century. This refers to the cultural classification of people as ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’. Societies set down cultural expectations for males and females and people are encouraged to think, feel and act in manner ‘appropriate’ to their sex. It is argued that although boys get much more attention from teachers, “it is not simply because they are boys, it is partly because of the way both boys and girls behave and this behaviour is shaped by the wider society,” (French, 1986). The most determined action taken within the school cannot effectively counter the influence of peer groups, magazines, television and family. Even if teachers get rid of their sexist attitudes everything would not necessarily be fair and both boys and girls would be treated equally, but classroom action is a two-way process, it is not simply teacher led. French argued that pupils bring in their own behaviour patterns to the classroom. Boys are more mobile, active, disruptive and demand more attention and girls are more interested and more likely to obey rules. Boys got attention simply because their behaviour is more problematic. One reason why there was a lot of inequality in the education system was because females were usually driven towards certain subjects and they were more of the domestic type and less physical. In the 19th century for example, people believed men and women had fixed amounts of energy. Women were believed to use much of the energy in menstruation which defined them as physically unfit. Today many people believe that hormonal differences play a major part in shaping behaviour of men and women. These differences are encouraged by widespread social beliefs. Yet, Harvey Goldstein (1987) points out that on average girls performed better in the 11 +. Some LEA’s adjusted girls’ scores downwards in order to ensure that girls did not predominantly occupy grammar school. Nevertheless, the organisation of the school timetable and the sort of advice that pupils received from teachers played a major part in directing the girls towards traditional and predictable subject areas. Girls interviewed in one of Sue Sharpe’s studies (1970) rejected jobs as engineers and electricians because they defined them as ‘men’s’ work or felt that the society largely defined them as such. In these circumstances it was hardly surprising that most girls saw little point in studying subjects that are traditionally the province of men. Subjects such as science tended to be seen as masculine because in most science textbooks there are very few females portrayed in them and teachers used examples which were most in boy’s experiences. Another reason is boys tend to dominate science classrooms, grabbing apparatus before girls have a chance to use it. An initial survey by Benn and Simon of the whole field of comprehensive schools in 1968 and two follow – up surveys conducted in the school year of 1971-2 revealed that very few schools follow a common curriculum for boys and girls. In the early days of comprehensive reform (Benn and Simon 1972) low status school subjects such as domestic science, typing and childcare were not open to boys, while girls were excluded from woodwork, metalwork and technical drawing. This gendered legacy undermined the potential for comprehensive schools to add to the educational aspirations of girls, particularly working class girls. Schools played a part to convince girls that their education is not really important. Along with subjects set differently competition, different uniform, school rules and separate playgrounds set all play a role. “Schools are, at least partly, responsible for the beliefs amongst girls that training is important, their jobs are inessential and husbands are financially responsible for them. Poor job opportunities, low pay and discrimination at work both cause and reflect discrimination at school”… “The education system is, we believe, creating discriminatory attitudes and low expectations in new generations of children.” (National Council for Civil Liberties, Women’s Rights, November 1973). Some Local Education Authorities have taken initiatives designed to improve educational opportunities for girls. In particular, males and females tend to chose different subjects to study and this is despite the improvements in levels of education attainment for females compared to males. Although schools were improving in this respect, Sue Sharpe believed that girls tended to be steered towards art subjects and directed particularly to subjects such as cookery, needlework and typing. In western industrial societies there is general agreement that education should be based on equality of opportunity. A regulation for the curriculum that was the course in a school should provide; “English, geography, history, mathematics, science and drawing and due provision for manual work and exercise, and in girls’ school for housewifery” Sir Robert Morant (1903). The women’s movement and female sociologists have drawn attention to gender inequalities in education. This has made teachers more aware and has persuaded some to change their practices so that they are less likely to disadvantage female pupils and students. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 prohibits being given to one sex at the expense of another, has not been effective in reforming educational practice” (David, 1980). The Equal Opportunities Commission was established to monitor the Sex Discrimination Act, which provided evidence of discriminatory practices, such as the unequal pupil access to subjects not traditionally associated with their sex, for example boys to domestic science, girls to technical drawing (1979, 1982) even then, a repeat research of Sue Sharp in 1990’s showed that set priorities of the girls had changed their first main priority which was once love and marriage, is now education. Despite the introduction of equal opportunity Acts such as the Sex Discrimination `Acts it still did not make a huge difference to equalise the opportunity in the education system for both the genders. From early in the century to around 1970 (Ayre & Steven 1985) critisms were usually focused on the treatment of boys, especially at elementary level. Critics noted that boys received lower grades in all subjects and lower achievement test scores in reading and language arts. They suggested these sex differences because the schools were ‘too femine’ or the ‘overwhelmingly female’ teachers were unable to meet boys’ learning needs. There was also evidence of double standards in the classroom. When girls questioned or challenged teachers they were often rebuked whereas boys were met with respect and serious response. It was found by Goddard-Spear (1989) that ‘girls’ and ‘boys’ written work was judged by different standards. When teachers were asked to mark essays, the same work got better marks when teachers were told boys wrote it. Some science teachers were given some work to grade. Half of them believed they were, marking boys’ work, they gave higher grades for scientific accuracy and organisation of ideas compared to the identical work they believed was done by girls. As there was to some extent inequality of gender in education according to Spender (1980), it is remarkable that girls have done so well up to the age of eighteen. Until the late 1980’s there was much concern about underachievement of girls, girls did not do quite as well as boys in exams and were also less likely to progress onto A-Levels and enter higher education. Since the 1990’s, girls have been seen to out-perform boys at most levels of the education system i.e. in English, maths and science. There was a significant reduction in gender differences in the number of studying certain subjects over the period from 1985-6 to 1991-2. Attempts to initiate educational reform, Arnot & Weiner (1987) argues, have been limited to improving girls’ education in scientific and technological subjects rather than tackling the problem of sexism or the restructuring of relations between the sexes. Teresa Grafton et al (1987) in a study of a school in south-west England in fourth year subject choice should that when guidelines were issued to third year tutors which stressed that all subjects were open to both sexes. ‘Prior discussion’ was necessary for boys to take the ‘family and child option’ and girls had to show ‘sincere desire’ to take metalwork and woodwork. An equal opportunities programme is a superficial attempt to answer a complex problem. Such a programme does not contain a challenge either to culture, which produces stereotypes, or to the language in which the curriculum is taught (Cornbleet and Saunders 1982). Some small attempts at education reforms are still being introduced opportunities for breaking down traditional sexual divisions outside of education but the main concern now with failing boys’ remains ignored. In subjects such as medicine the number of female students increased and number of males decreased. Between 1997 and 1985 women on medical staff had increased by a third. Girls, mainly the working class girls had very low attendance at each level due to domestic responsibilities. However by 1990’s the attendance rate of girls had improved. According to Sue Sharpe (1994), girls were increasingly wary about marriage. They had seen adult relationships breaking up around them and seen women coping alone in what was once a ‘man’s world’. Therefore education was seen as the main role to a good job and financial independence. Girls had become more confident, more assertive, ambitious and committed to gender inequality. With the abolition of the 11-plus exam and the introduction of comprehensive schools most Local Authorities removed some of the barriers to girls’ achievement. Girls no longer artificially “failed” in order to get equal number of boys and girls into grammar school. Growing awareness of gender bias in school had made attempts to remove it e.g. there was recognition that girls were put off by what were seen as “boys’ subject”. In 1988, the National Curriculum provided a compulsory core curriculum for all students up to the age of 16 – no matter what their gender. All students in England and Wales now take mathematics, science, English, a modern language, technology and information technology until the age of 16. For most this was a positive response to the need to afford pupils’ equal access to the same curriculum. However, it remains the case that the privileging of mathematics, science and technology embodied a persistent tendency to emphasise traditional gender hierarchies (Miles and Middleton 1995). It is in such aspects of classroom like, the ‘hidden curriculum’, where gender differences appear more frequently, but are less obvious than the overt forms of discrimination. It is the ‘taken for granted ness’ or the ‘naturalness’ of these gender differences, like language and interaction, which make them not only ‘invisible’ to the general onlooker but also very difficult to challenge. Functionalists see the transmission of society’s core values as part of the hidden curriculum. It is hidden in the sense that the teachers and pupils are often unaware of the process. It is part of the curriculum because it is found in every school, but Marxists argue that the main job of school is the social reproduction/producing workers schooled to accept their roles in capitalist society. For Bowles and Gintis (1976), this is done primarily through the hidden curriculum. They claimed that the schools produce subordinate, well-disciplined workers who would control from above and take orders rather than question them. Schools do this by rewarding, conformity, hard work and punctuality, by penalising creativity, originality and independence. The hidden curriculum is useful because there is a lot more being taught and learned in schools than the formal curriculum of English, maths, science and so on. Much of this is ‘hidden’ – teachers and learners are often unaware of what is going on. References Adams and Laurikietis 1980, The Gender Trap; A Closer Look at Sex Roles; Virago Ltd Arnot and Weiner 1987, Gender Under Scrutiny; Hutchinson, London Ayres and Steven 1985, Industrial Robots on the Line; In Tom Forrester (Ed). The Information Technology Revolution; Oxford, Blackwell Bowles and Gintis 1976, Schooling in Capitalistic America; Rouledge and Kegan Paul, London Davies, L 1984, Pupil Power; Deviance and Gender in School; Falmer Press Education Act 2002 (2002): The Curriculum in England, Retrieved on August 26, 2006 from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2002/20032--k.htm#82 French, J 1986, Gender Imbalances in the Primary Classroom; An Interact ional Account, in Woods and Hammersley (ed) Giddens, A 1997, Sociology 3rd edition; Polity Press, UK Goldstein, H 1987, Gender Bias and Test Norms in Educational Selection; in M.Arnot and G. Wiener Haralambos and Holborn 1995, Sociology Themes and Perspectives 4th edition; Collins Educational, UK National Curriculum Online (2006): About the National Curriculum - Key stages 1 and 2, retrieved on August 27, 2006 from http://www.nc.uk.net/nc_resources/html/ks1and2.shtml National Curriculum Online (2006): About the National Curriculum - Key stages 3 and 4, retrieved on August 27, 2006 from http://www.nc.uk.net/nc_resources/html/ks3and4.shtml Reid and Stratta 1989, Sex Differences in Britain 2nd edition; Gower publishing group Sharpe, S 1994, Just Like a Girl 2nd edition; Penguin, Harmondsworth Spender, D 1983, Invisible Women; Schooling Sandal; Women’s Press, London Read More