Last Woman Standing - Bad Housekeeping Post

New post up over at the wonderful Bad Housekeeping, thank-you!

Tuition Fees: justifications and implications

Since the proposal to raise university tuition fees this topic has been pretty constant in the media. And so it should. It's something which I have always maintained a slight mixed view of, recognising mostly the shortcomings of this change but also some positive aspects. Firstly, I would perhaps be more sympathetic of the rise in tuition fees if such a rise was coupled with changes within HE itself. As far as I can see, the increase in fees has not been coupled with an increase in student experience. Courses are indiscriminately charging the higher end of the fees, regardless of their rating compared with other courses at other universities e.g. universities which rank low in terms of student experience have still charged the same in fees as universities which have ranked higher. It's frustrating when perhaps these universities have made no changes to justify the increase. However, it could be argued they've done so because of the economic climate in HE more generally - that an increase in tuition fees has been to recognise the continuing financial issues suffered by universities. But there seems to be no evidence of this. Even just anecdotally - speaking to those working in HE reveals most believe the financial situation is worse than ever. From what I can see, the government aren't justifying it through such ways either, with the focus being on students making a contribution or 'paying their way'. Now, whether or not I agree with the increase, I take the position that this should not deter students from progressing onto university. I understand the concern about debt and the large amount of debt but I stand my ground on the belief that a tuition fees loan is not like other debt. I've never had someone knocking on my door or letters through the post demanding a payment. And if I don't earn enough, I'm not repaying it and if I don't ever repay it all, I'm not particularly bothered (sounds really flippant, I know). Regardless of how I feel, I can see that students do worry about this. Not all of them, but more than before the increase in fees. So I do believe that the rise in tuition fees might be putting off students from lower economic backgrounds. And that's a major issue for me. It might be suggested that a rise in tuition fees means that a degree becomes less of a rite of passage which most people will go through and that it makes degrees more valuable, decreasing the number of graduates and moves us away from the situation where we have too many graduates for not enough graduate positions. I kinda agree with that. BUT, we'll be moving to a smaller number of graduates with most of these graduates coming from a particular economic (and social) background. The potential held by a number of working-class students who do not progress to university because they're put off by the debt will be wasted. So whilst I can see some value to the rise in tuition fees in HE I think there is a lot more damage done than good. And it's certainly not being justified with the right reasons.

In which I lose faith (which arguably never existed) in the GSA

Jill Berry, president of the Girls' School Association (GSA), has been popping up in the press recently with some quite alarming, and sometimes contradictory, notions.

Commenting on feminism and fashion and the recent story about Cambridge female undergrads' scantily clad photos, Berry commented that:

"Girls can be highly intelligent and interested in being seen to be attractive – the two aren't mutually exclusive"

For starters, not really a problem. Perhaps the idea of 'being seen to be attractive' is problematic (to me this suggest pampering to the rest of society's/men's version of what this means) but I do support the move away from the 'blonde-bimbo' vs 'ugly geek' dichotomy.

And then Berry claims:

"We must resist the impulse to judge women, to judge them harshly and judge them narrowly"

Lovely. Again, an idea I can get my head around.

But then when an article in The Guardian titled Girls should be 'realistic' about careers and motherhood – schools group head appears, the plot thickens...


Teenage girls need to be taught a heavy dose of realism – that it may not be possible to be a perfect mother and a career woman, the president of the Girls' Schools Association (GSA) will say next week.

Berry is now implying that girls need to be realistic about their futures. That there is 'nothing wrong' with mothers not working once they have children. Firstly, what kind of empowering message is that to young women? That they can be all they want to be but will have to re-think all that once they think about starting a family? Why are we telling girls to be 'realistic'? Why are we accepting that as the reality that women are often placed into positions in which they are pushed back into the private sphere once they give birth? Instead of telling the generation of tomorrow to wise-up about the way the world is, how about educating them on how to change that world?

And you know that what lies beneath this is a discourse of 'bad working mothers'. Considering we weren't meant to be judging women for their choices Berry...


Links to the two articles:

Fashion not a betrayal of feminist ideals
Girls should be realistic about motherhood and careers

Because sports ruin your hair...

Taken from the piece over at The Guardian:

A council spokeswoman said: "West Dunbartonshire Council has installed nine sets of hair straighteners within the changing facilities at each of the council's three new flagship schools...The falling rate of female participation in sport was a key issue discussed by pupils and improvements to changing and showering facilities, including the installation of hair straighteners, was considered important in reversing this trend. The installation amounts to a total expenditure of less than £1,000 to encourage more girls to participate in PE and support positive self-image."

So to support positive self-image in girls we are providing them with hair and beauty facilities to encourage them to participate in PE...surely this is merely reinforcing the message that it's all about how we look? How about promoting positive self-image through demonstrating that physical appearance isn't the be all and end all?

And the winner is...

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.

x-posted over at Subtext

Lessons on Forming Nonviolent Relationships Really As Easy As ABC?

Today’s The Daily Mail reported on Harriet Harman’s initiative to tackle domestic violence through compulsory lessons on forming healthy relationships for children five and upwards. Before I explain my views on Harman’s proposals, I just want to comment briefly on the presentation of this news by The Daily Mail. The author of this piece seems to me intent on criticizing, and rallying criticism for, the initiative from the word go – the headline line alone begins Lessons about wife-beating at five which to me would suggest the article is going to be about something advocating wife-beating to children, immediately conjuring your distaste, instead of action to combat domestic violence. Secondly, again featured in the headline before even getting to the report, is the use of the expression yet another feminist initiative. ‘Yet another’ suggests disdain at the proposals from Harman and indeed any action in initiated by feminist beliefs. To actually label an initiative as ‘feminist’ suggests to me that people straight away are going to look disapprovingly on the idea because of the negative connotations of feminist/feminism. And the majority of the comments on the web-site with regards to this piece follow suit. So congratulations TDM firstly on the sensitive presentation of such a piece…

Onto Harman’s initiative and the body of the article itself…I can immediately see benefits and problems to this. When TDM reports that

Pupils as young as five will be taught about the evils of 'wife beating' and the need to form healthy relationships. The lessons are part of a controversial drive, unveiled today, to reduce violence against women and young girls. They will include teaching boys that they must not beat their partners or any other female.

I think hey! This doesn’t sound so bad! What is there not to like about a) teaching children about forming healthy relationships and b) reducing violence against women and young girls. Slightly off-putting the way it is deemed a controversial drive (because the notion of combating violence against women/young girls is way out there with, I don’t know, outlawing McDonald’s…) but so far looking good.

Last night, critics warned that ministers are cramming the already over-stuffed National Curriculum with lessons that should be taught in the home or in the community.

This has been an ongoing battle with PSHE. A colleague of mine, when speaking of the subject, would call it “PSHE…or things your parents should be teaching you”. In all honesty, yes it is things you should be taught at home/in the community as an important part of your growing-up but the argument is that this isn’t always being done. PSHE evolved from the early notions that education should be producing ‘good’ citizens socialized into the shared norms and values of our society (so New Right) and so of course when it was deemed that the family was not doing their part (government would cite rising statistics of single mothers/offenders as their proof for this) then the education system should pick up where the parents left off (or even out). I acknowledge that, yes, PSHE is largely what you should be taught at home/in the community (and which a number of us still are taught there) but that until we can ensure this is being done, the education system does appear the only means of attempting to ensure such teaching.

Putting it into practice further, the idea becomes less appealing:

The lessons will be part of the National Curriculum and are likely to be taught in Personal, Social and Health Education classes, which are attended by children from the age of five. Teachers will also be given new guidance on tackling 'gender bullying'.

Now I am not particularly convinced that firstly this would work in practice and secondly that it would have the desired effect. My first concern comes from my experience of teaching PSHE in Key Stage 3 (ages 11-14 approximately) which has demonstrated that the learners, on the whole, dislike the subject. It is not deemed academic; it is not an option which they pick for GCSE; it is not formally assessed as such – all these things contribute to learners not seeing any potential value to the subject (again, on the whole, as there are always a handful who put in the effort/work regardless). So my concern is that this may work in practice for a small minority, but not for the larger majority. Factor into this the impact the introduction of such lessons/curriculum has on teachers, and the education establishment as a whole. An added concern here is how such a sensitive issue would be approached. A year or so ago OCR removed the topic of Child Abuse from their AS-level Sociology course because of the implications of teaching such a sensitive topic and possible impact on learners. Wouldn't this warrant similar concerns?

The most eye-catching proposal in the document is the one to force schools to introduce statutory lessons in 'educating children and young people about healthy, nonviolent relationships'.


I love the idea of children and young people learning about healthy, nonviolent relationships but here we come to how I don’t think such lessons would have the desired effect. Making children and young people aware of violence against women may have positive aspects but as these lessons will not cover violence against men then I believe such lessons will run the risk of further instilling gender differences in young girls and boys. By acknowledging only violence against women and valuing this above violence against men, I believe we would only be purporting that violence against women is justified. If as young children we are brought into a discourse of violence against women I think this could potentially be internalized and acknowledged as we grow older that such violence happens against women, and not men, because of something fundamentally different in them. And though I am not saying this will mean the next generation committing violence against women as a result, I think this will result in further justification of women’s inferior position and treatment.

They pointed out the new classes will not cover violence against men, who are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime. This is despite evidence showing that boys and young men are more than twice as likely to fall victim to violence, and that young women are becoming increasingly aggressive.

I do agree with the criticism of the initiative not covering violence against men. Not because they are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime but firstly because of the argument I have expressed above and secondly because I think the commonly held assumption of, say, domestic violence as violence against women by men needs to be addressed. This is not going to be addressed by navigating away from discussion of violence against men in lessons focusing on healthy, nonviolent relationships. This then suggests that such violence is not important. Not only is domestic violence underreported by women, it is underreported by men who have been victims. Surely keeping the discussion of violence against men behind closed doors is not helping to correct such misrepresentation?

End Note: I am aware that I have focused my line of thought predominantly on domestic violence and it is slightly presumptuous (and hypocritical) of myself to have done so when talking about an initiative combating ‘violence against women’ (which was not expressed as merely domestic violence) and criticizing others for their assumptions on the same issue.

x-posted to Subtext

News Fix

A selection from The Guardian over the last week:

Boys outperform girls at science in UK, gender stereotyping to blame?

Interview with a Shanghai professor of women and gender studies

Orbituary

Patricia Crawford, Australian feminist historian.

Betty Scharf, Academic (LSE, Fawcett Society).

Dr Jessica Rongrose - Feminism in Schools

Girls should be taught feminism at school to stop them being disrespectful to each other, according to a leading academic.

I completely agree with this. We SHOULD be teaching feminism at school - not just to girls, but to boys and even to the teachers themselves. Feminism is relevant to everyone, no matter who they are, and we should stop seeing it as a 'bad word' which we can acknowledge, but which cannot actually promote. I would love to see this taken further in the future. I know how accessible teaching feminism is within my course (Sociology) but this subject is mainly taught at post-compulsory (i.e. sixth form and college level) and the subject itself is male-dominated (in terms of research, sociologists and so forth). But we could incorporate feminism into a wide variety of subjects, something which I am sure some teachers already do out of their commitment to the cause and not because of it being required.

Does a Problem of Failing Boys Really Exist?

With regards to this issue it might be wise to consider statistics on GCSE attainment which suggest that perhaps it is more the case that girls are merely continuing to improve, rather than boys failing. In 1993/94, 48.2 per cent of females achieved 5 or more GCSE grade A*-C compared to 39.2 per cent of males. This pattern persisted in 2003/4 with 59.3 per cent of females and 49.2 per cent of males (National Statistics). I use these statistics to reflect how boys are not so much failing at school, having indeed improved on previous attainment levels, as they are failing to catch-up with their female counterparts. Why should this be such a problem? As Chris Keates (NASUWT) notes (The Guardian, 14/06/06) there is perhaps now an overemphasis on the failing of boys with men trying to “fight their corner”. I believe that this overemphasis is somewhat unnecessary. The gender gap in performance in schools does not appear to have a detrimental effect on males as a whole giving the gender pay gap and occupational segregation that exists. Much research shows that despite females generally outperforming males in education they tend to still be concentrated in less skilled, lower paid employment. Tony Selwell’s argument that males are failing now in the jobs market as well as in education is somewhat laughable.

Selwell argues that the curriculum has become feminised, with an overemphasis on coursework and a lack of nurturing of male traits (The Guardian, 13/06/06). Selwell could be criticised for assuming a position of biological determinism, a position which is highly contested by many feminists, and of homogenization. It is perhaps dangerous to accept the view that all boys thrive on competition and leadership or need to participate in physical activity, just as it is to accept the idea that all girls are outperforming the boys - what about those who are not? In terms of assessment, not all boys excel in exam conditions as opposed to coursework and this varies from student to student, male to female. Maybe we should now concentrate on addressing the way individual students learn and focus on training them in the various modes of assessment, rather than blame the failing of boys, or indeed the achievement of girls, on their supposed inherent traits.