from London, United Kingdom
Introduction
Gender inequalities have a crucial role in social systems, permeating every phase and area of people’s lives. The educational system is not an exception in the matter.
In this article, I will try to underpin the main phenomena characterizing educational inequalities and why it is fundamental to consider gender dynamics in finding solutions. Different types of discussions are needed in evaluating the urges: on one side the problem of access (especially in the so-called Global South) and on the other side the issue of schooling choices and the impact it has on the wages gap (more prominently in the so-called Global North).
Inequality of access
Moreover, what happens in educational systems does nothing but mirror societal problems (Ball, 2010; Spender, 1989). It is naïve to keep thinking of educational systems as a panacea without considering how society shapes and plays a fundamental role, especially during the educational phase. And it would be naïve also not to consider gender linked with socio-economic conditions (Cabrera et al., 2015). Even though the number of girls enrolled in schools has dramatically improved since the beginning of the 20th century, Subrahmanian warns about considering only this as the accurate indicator of gender equality, discussing rights through, within and to education (2005). It does not give us an accurate picture of the extent of the phenomenon and the relevance it keeps on having. Ackermann (et al., 2017) points out how, in many regional contexts, girls are more likely to drop out of school during conflicts (around 2.5 times more).
To add on that, girls tend to be undersupported in their schooling careers (Singh et al., 2018), with families and, more broadly, society impacting not only school choices (Asadullah et al., 2018) but, as previously said, more crucially schooling access (Aikman et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2020). The economic constraints in the so-called Global South are big enough not to guarantee equitable access to educational institutions, with societies tending to privilege males over females on the matter.
Investing in education equality
Even though investing in girls’ education points out to better economic outcomes as well, not only societal equity, this does not mean it is always fostered as it should be (Schultz, 2002). However, improving the level of education alone does not seem to improve economic equality accordingly (Evans et al., 2021). For instance, research by Bericat et al. (2016) points at how, regardless of the improved equality of access, the types of studies and, subsequently, job sectors remain unchanged and gendered.
As one of the possible solutions, private providers foster access to education (projects such as Escuela Nueva, McEwan et al., 2001). Educational contexts in which resources are limited need to take into account the possibility of opening the world of education to private providers. This phenomenon has indeed improved the conditions in certain areas. Still, it needs to be considered how those providers can lack accountability (Baum et al., 2018) and also that the equality in private provision is, worldwide, highly contested, both in the so-called Global North and in the so-called Global South (Ball, 2012; Lipman, 2015; Lubienski, 2013; Williams et al., 2015).
Inequality of choices: STEM’s case
If the side of the access seems to have quite an ‘easy’ solution (taking into account what has been previously said), other aspects are more difficult to delve in. Gender segregation in certain disciplines still tends to create a subsequent gender wages gap (Sen, 2000). There are several lenses that can be used to analyze this trend. First of all, as Correll (2001) points out, girls tend to underestimate their mathematics abilities with subsequent repercussions in terms of careers in the field of STEM.
This indicates how the self-assessment is inherently biased by a set of static cultural representations of gender roles and how this influences the choice of studying ‘scientific’ subjects instead of ‘humanistic’ ones in the United States. Kessels (2005) points out how gender stereotypes play a fundamental role, affecting both interests at schools and, as stressed by Hadjar (2014), teachers’ mindset in evaluating pupils.
As an example, a study on vocational education (Reisel et al., 2015) shows how gendered the subject choice can be. While access seems less of a problem in the so-called Global North, the accents are posed on other dynamics in schools. The choice of school – if not guided by tutors able to deconstruct this stereotypical view of capabilities (as suggested by West et al., 2003) – tends to reproduce, especially in vocational training, a gendered perspective, with men interested in crafts and technical subjects and women choosing health and welfare (Reisel et al., 2015). This type of segregation does not empower girls with the tools they need to overcome what has become a ‘naturalized’ version of different capabilities. Those schools are an example in which gendered identities (might address them as ‘constructed’) have a strong influence on segregation as well as worse labour outcomes for girls (Gundert et al.,2012).
Gender,education, society
As an example, Biemmi (2015) points out how schools themselves reflect the image of a sexist society in Italy, indicating how the careers undertaken by women are the ones with lower salaries, thus reproducing gender inequalities in school choice also in the labour market. As Spender says, “Schools cannot teach what society does not know” (1982:3).
Moreover, it can be argued that all the people are the same in terms of what they can or cannot do. By saying that, I mean that equality of opportunity is fundamental. Empowering girls with the possibility of choosing a particular path rather than relying solely on their personal preference (and not taking into account societal and cultural constructs) is, therefore, a fundamental step to take to aim at equality, especially in the educational system.
While discussing gender inequalities in education, we should never forget how to use gender as lenses in society. Still, we should not forget how other factors come into play while reproducing inequalities (Lynch et al., 2009). As pointed out by Castellano et al. (2018), it is essential to stress how the familiar background can be a more vital factor than gender inequality policies. Their analysis confirms that girls tend to outperform men in terms of reading outcomes and educational attainments. However, despite education being one of the main predictors of earnings, girls still tend to be paid less than men.
Conclusion
So, how to be effective in tackling those inequalities? There is no easy answer. Multisectoral solutions are the easy ones to advocate. Cultural and social change is needed and fundamental if an equal society is what we are aiming for—because of that, deconstructing certain stereotypes, advocating for equal wages and discriminations seem some of the ways to tackle educational inequality. Offering comprehensive programs tailored to the necessities of students, using an idea of co-construction of policy (Vaillancourt, 2009) and co-production of knowledge (Freire, 2000), seems a good approach in trying to tackle those inequalities. This does not mean forgetting that most of what happens in class is a product of societal dynamics.
Therefore, a more comprehensive analysis on how to tackle those dynamics outside of the educational sector is needed. There have been some important improvements in terms of gender equality, especially regarding what Subrahmanian (2005) calls rights to education. This does not mean that this is enough. On the contrary, there is, more than ever, the need for an understanding of the dynamics that create the inequalities mentioned above. Only by doing so, policymaking could be effective not solely in containing the phenomenon but, more importantly, in assuring that values such as equality of opportunity get to the real core of society.
Bibliography A-M
Ackerman, X.S. and Scott, K. (2017) ‘Gains and gaps in girls’ education’, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 47(1), pp. 133–136. doi:10.1080/03057925.2016.1241392.
Aikman, S. and Unterhalter, E. (eds) (2005) Beyond access: transforming policy and practice for gender equality in education. Oxford: Oxfam.
Asadullah, M.N. and Maliki (2018) ‘Madrasah for girls and private school for boys? The determinants of school type choice in rural and urban Indonesia’, International Journal of Educational Development, 62, pp. 96–111. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2018.02.006.
Ball, S.J. (2010) ‘New class inequalities in education: Why education policy may be looking in the wrong place! Education policy, civil society and social class’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30(3/4), pp. 155–166. doi:10.1108/01443331011033346.
Ball, S.J. (2012) ‘The reluctant state and the beginning of the end of state education, Journal of Educational Administration and History, 44(2), pp. 89–103. doi:10.1080/00220620.2012.658764.
Baum, D.R., Cooper, R. and Lusk-Stover, O. (2018) ‘Regulating market entry of low-cost private schools in Sub-Saharan Africa: Towards a theory of private education regulation’, International Journal of Educational Development, 60, pp. 100–112. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.10.020.
Bericat, E. and Sánchez Bermejo, E. (2016) ‘Structural Gender Equality in Europe and Its Evolution Over the First Decade of the Twentyfirst Century’, Social Indicators Research, 127(1), pp. 55–81. doi:10.1007/s11205-015-0949-y.
Biemmi, I. (2015) ‘Gender in schools and culture: taking stock of education in Italy’, Gender and Education, 27(7), pp. 812–827. doi:10.1080/09540253.2015.1103841.
Cabrera, Leopoldo & Betancort, Moises & Pérez Sánchez, Carmen. (2015). “Social Class, Family, Gender and Educational Performance”.
Castellano, R., Punzo, G. and Rocca, A. (2018) ‘The generational perspective of gender gap in wages and education in southern Europe’, Review of Social Economy, 76(2), pp. 227–258. doi:10.1080/00346764.2017.1423512.
Correll, S.J. (2001) ‘Gender and the Career Choice Process: The Role of Biased Self‐Assessments’, American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), pp. 1691–1730. doi:10.1086/321299.
Evans, D.K., Akmal, M. and Jakiela, P. (2021) ‘Gender gaps in education: The long view 1’, IZA Journal of Development and Migration, 12(1), p. 20210001. doi:10.2478/izajodm-2021-0001.
Freire, P. (2000) Pedagogy of the oppressed. 30th anniversary ed. New York: Continuum.
Gundert, S. and Mayer, K.U. (2012) ‘Gender Segregation in Training and Social Mobility of Women in West Germany’, European Sociological Review, 28(1), pp. 59–81. doi:10.1093/esr/jcq048.
Hadjar, A. et al. (2014) ‘Gender and educational achievement’, Educational Research, 56(2), pp. 117–125. doi:10.1080/00131881.2014.898908.
Kessels, U. (2005) ‘Fitting into the stereotype: How gender-stereotyped perceptions of prototypic peers relate to liking for school subjects’, European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(3), pp. 309–323. doi:10.1007/BF03173559.
Lee, Y.J., Mouktaoui, F. and Kim, Y. (2020) ‘Mitigating gender gap in access to primary education in rural areas of Morocco’, Africa Review, 12(1), pp. 37–50. doi:10.1080/09744053.2019.1685335.
Lipman, P. (2015) ‘Capitalizing on crisis: venture philanthropy’s colonial project to remake urban education’, Critical Studies in Education, 56(2), pp. 241–258. doi:10.1080/17508487.2015.959031.
Lubienski, C. (2013) ‘Privatising form or function? Equity, outcomes and influence in American charter schools’, Oxford Review of Education, 39(4), pp. 498–513. doi:10.1080/03054985.2013.821853.
Lynch, K. and Feeley, M. (2009) Gender and education (and employement): gendered imperatives and their implications for women and men. S.l.: NESSE.
McEwan, P.J. and Benveniste, L. (2001) ‘The politics of rural school reform: Escuela Nueva in Colombia’, Journal of Education Policy, 16(6), pp. 547–559. doi:10.1080/02680930110087816.
Bibliography N-Z
Paul Schultz, T. (2002) ‘Why Governments Should Invest More to Educate Girls’, World Development, 30(2), pp. 207–225. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00107-3.
Reisel, L., Hegna, K. and Imdorf, C. (2015) ‘Gender Segregation in Vocational Education: Introduction’, in Imdorf, C., Hegna, K., and Reisel, L. (eds) Comparative Social Research. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 1–22. doi:10.1108/S0195-631020150000031023.
Sen, A. (2000) Development as freedom. 1. Anchor Books ed. New York: Anchor Books.
Singh, R. and Mukherjee, P. (2018) ‘“Whatever she may study, she can’t escape from washing dishes”: gender inequity in secondary education – evidence from a longitudinal study in India’, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 48(2), pp. 262–280. doi:10.1080/03057925.2017.1306434.
Spender, D. (1989) Invisible women: the schooling scandal. London: The Women’s Press (A feminist classic from The Women’s Press).
Subrahmanian, R. (2005) ‘Gender equality in education: Definitions and measurements’, International Journal of Educational Development, 25(4), pp. 395–407. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2005.04.003.
Vaillancourt, Y. (2009) ‘SOCIAL ECONOMY IN THE CO-CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC POLICY’, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 80(2), pp. 275–313. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8292.2009.00387.x.
West, A. and Pennell, H. (2003) Underachievement in schools. London ; New York: Routledge Falmer (School concerns series).
Williams, T.P., Abbott, P. and Mupenzi, A. (2015) ‘“Education at our school is not free”: the hidden costs of fee-free schooling in Rwanda’, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45(6), pp. 931–952. doi:10.1080/03057925.2014.938611.
Autore dell’articolo*: Pietro Rabusin, expert in Social Policy of the think tank Trinità dei Monti. BSc in International Economics and Financial Markets at Università degli Studi di Trieste. MSc in International Social and Public Policy at London School of Economics and Political Science
***
Nota della redazione del Think Tank Trinità dei Monti
Come sempre pubblichiamo i nostri lavori per stimolare altre riflessioni, che possano portare ad integrazioni e approfondimenti.
* I contenuti e le valutazioni dell’intervento sono di esclusiva responsabilità dell’autore.
Editor’s Note – Think Tank Trinità dei Monti
As always, we publish our articles to encourage debates, and to spread knowledge and original and alternative points of view.
* The contents and the opinions of this article belong to the author(s) of this article only.