gender + achievement

• external - feminism and changing ambitions influenced girls' achievement:

  • McRobbie (1994) - Studied girls’ magazines.

  In the 1970s, emphasised the importance of getting married/not being ‘left on the shelf’. Now = contain images of assertive, independent women.

  • Sharpe (1994) studied the Changing ambitions through interviews in 1970s and 1990s to present a major shift in the ways girls see their future.

  1974 = low aspirations; they believed education successful was unfeminine. 1990s = more likely to see their future as an independent woman with a career rather than a dependent housewife.
• EXTERNAL – changes in female employment influenced girls' achievement:

  • 1970 Equal Pay Act made it illegal for women to be paid less than men for work of equal value.
  • 1975 Sex Discrimination Act outlaws gender discrimination at work.
  • Proportion of women in work: 53% (1971) vs 67% (2013) as a result of the growth of the service sector.
• INTERNAL – GCSEs and coursework influenced girls' achievement:

  • Gerard (2005) constant gender gap until 1989 - increased sharply as GCSEs were introduced - majority coursework.

  Concluded the gap was due to the changing system not boys failing more.

  • Mitosis and Brown (1998) girls are more successful in coursework due to them being more conscientious and organised.
  • Characteristics are result of early gender role socialisation as girls are encouraged to be neat and patient.

  Although = coursework in not marked on being neat and tidy, only on the quality.
• INTERNAL - teacher attention influenced girls' achievement:

  • Jane and Peter French (1993) - observation found boys receive more for poor behaviour.

  Felt they were not the ‘ideal pupil’ or being negatively labelled so they withdrew efforts. However, an example of Hawthorne effect as it is an observation and this is a subjective approach as the Frenchs’ as they had to decide what is and isn’t a reprimand.
• INTERNAL – equal opportunities policies influenced girls' achievement:

  • GIST (girls into science and technology) and WISE (women in science and engineering) to encourage jobs in non-traditional areas.
  • National Curriculum in 1988 removed gender inequalities by allowing boys and girls to study the same subjects.
• Archer (2007) - reasons for girls failing:

  Hyper heterosexual feminine identities - interviews, 89 WC girls, constructed identities reflecting urban American styles with 'sexy' makeup. identity brought girls status to a group and avoided being ridiculed yet conflicted with schools - punished for appearance and their obsession with their appearance acted as a distraction.
• Archer (2007) - reasons for girls failing:

  • boyfriends - distraction and lowered girls' aspirations to 'settling down' and doing a WC feminine job.

  Argued investments into this feminine identity is a major cause of their underachievement.
• Archer's 2007 on girls' underachievement

  strengths -

  • In depth qualitative approach by conducting interviews with 89 working-class girls.
  • Intersectional Perspective as it considers the intersectionality of factors incl: class, gender, education.
  • Explains why these girls fail.
• Archer's 2007 on girls' underachievement

  weaknesses -

  • Small sample size – 89 participants may limit the generalisability of findings.
  • Potential Bias – doesn’t provide details about the process of participant selection which raises concerns about potential bias in the representation of working-class girls.
  • Subjectivity – qualitative studies involve interpretation and there may be subjectivity in how the researcher interprets participants’ experiences.
• Reasons for Boys’ underachievement

  • Literacy rate - boys have poorer literacy/language skills.
  • due to less time spent reading to boys and mothers’ find this as a feminine activity.
  • Globalisation and decline of traditional men’s jobs
  • Since 80s, decline in heavy industries due to globalisation whereby it has relocated to developing countries for cheap labour.
  • = ‘Crisis of masculinity’ where men are confused with gender roles and believe they have little chance of having jobs.
  • Undermines motivations so they give up on qualifications.
• reasons for Boys' underachievement

  • Shortage of Male role models
  • 1.5 million female headed lone parent families in the UK, 14% of primary school teachers are male, 39% of 8-11 yr old boys have no lessons with a male teacher and most say in a male presence they behave better and 42% say they work harder.
  • Feminisation of Education (Sewell 2006)
  • Argues schools do not nurture masculine traits like competitiveness and leadership and celebrate methodological working and attentiveness.
• Reasons for gender differences in subject choice

  • gender role socialisation
  • Murphy and Elwood (1998) – boys and girls develop different tastes in reading and leads to subject choices as boys read non- fiction (science subjects) and girls read fiction (english).
  • gender domains
  • Browne and Ross (1991) - Beliefs about domains are shaped by early experiences and expectations of adults.
  • peer pressure
  • Boys avoid music/dance, falls out of their domain and are more likely to attract negative responses from peers.
  • Absence of pressure from other gender explains single sex school.
• reinforcement of gender identities through:

  • double standards - form of social control, reinforces gender inequality.
  • Lees (1993) evident in sexual morality in which boys boast about their sexual exploits but call a girl a ‘slag’ instead.
  • verbal abuse
  • Paechter – helps shape identities and maintain male power. Use of ‘gay, queer, lezzie’ to police sexual identities.
  • male peer groups
  • use verbal abuse to reinforce definitions of masculinity - Willis’ lads study anti-school subcultures often accuse aspirational peers of being gay.
• reinforcement of gender identities through:

  • the male gaze - the way male pupils and teachers look girls up and down, seeing them as sexual objects and making judgements about their appearance (Mac an Ghail).
  • Form of surveillance through which dominance is reinforced and femininity is devalued.