And the winner is…

Laura — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:55:00 +0000

As reported here boys this year overtook girls in maths GCSE. Why? Because of the eradication of the coursework and it being purely assessed now by exams; which, we are told, boys do better at. We are told “Coursework will be scrapped from nearly all GCSEs next year”. I’m sorry but should we be rejoicing at this removal of coursework in future GCSEs because it means boys can statistically get ahead?

In The Guardian write-up, Mary Bousted (general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers) is quoted as saying:

The problem has been that in the 1960s and 1970s boys were getting 12-13% more O-level passes than girls and no one really talked about it. When girls started to do better there were Panorama programmes and inquiries and a national debate. There’s a national panic if girls and women start to be successful. Girls have been more successful at GCSE and A-levels but that hasn’t closed the gender pay gap. Even if they do better they don’t get paid as much.

This is exactly the points I have stressed again and again in any writing on the gender gap in education – firstly this completely unjustified panic over girls ‘doing better’ than the boys and secondly the fact that despite what the qualification statistics show, better attainment at GCSE/A-Level does not equate with the better pay. Why can’t female students be seen as ‘doing better’? And why this stress on the “gender gap”? What about differences according to ethnicity or socio-economic background? Because I’m sure as hell that it’s not every girl ‘doing better’ – what about those who aren’t?

Teacher training courses emphasis the importance of differentiation and using a variety of techniques for learning and assessment in our lessons because no-one learns the same. We are told that coursework is becoming a problem because of plagiarism but then is that really a reason to remove what is potentially an effective assessment method for a large number of female students (if indeed we take the slightly deterministic argument that coursework benefits girls, exams boys)? Isn’t reliance of assessment through exams not differentiating?

A side thought (not properly investigated or backed): I think it’s telling that coursework is being removed at the educational stages where firstly girls are ‘doing better’ and secondly where girls and boys are present in proportional figures to the population when, for instance, no-one would dare suggest the removal of essays (or even dissertations!) at undergraduate level. It would be interesting to see whether such gendered patterns are present at this educational stage and the ratio of female to male undergraduates.

Laura

Edwina Currie on the pay gap…

Laura — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:23:00 +0000

As evil as the lure of procrasination might be, it did mean I stumbled across a gem of an interview with Edwina Currie on The One Show concerning the continuing pay gap between women and men. Such discrepencies don’t seem to cause any alarm in Currie; her responses implying that this is the way it is and even, this is the way it should be. The justification behind this? The matter of choice. Edwina Currie talks about the choices women make during their careers, choices involving children (think taking a ‘break’ in employment when you decide to start a family*). Of course, we women make such choices so it is only right that women’s pay reflects such…la di da da. The point at which Currie starts throwing around this buzzword of choice I am reminded of Catherine Hakim and her Preference Theory (basically the notion that patterns in women’s employment reflect the lifestyle preferences of women rather than patriarchal structures in society). Do we see the problem here? We can talk about ‘choice’ and ‘preference’ and doll this situation up as women being active decision makers of their life, their roles, their careers because that’s the easiest option isn’t? It’s just merely an attempt to mask the fact that despite equal pay legislation and work by the women’s movement, our society, to put it simply, still sucks on this. Why pretend that this is what women want because clearly it really isn’t. And of course Edwina will talk about ‘choice’ because it can, to an extent, be a matter of choice for women like her because of their background affording them more opportunities than perhaps the rest of us.

And all of this from day-time tv.

Laura

*Feeling the sarcasm?…

Disclaimer: I don’t particularly like The One Show and I feel the fact I found myself watching this episode on demand this morning was purely a reflection of my avoiding work…

Subtext Magazine » Employment

And the winner is…

Edwina Currie on the pay gap…