Education was to be one area of focus, as women had huge disadvantages in the system and weren’t able to obtain a higher education. Feminists reacted by opening up their own schools such as ‘North London Collegiate school for ladies’ formed by Mary Francis Buss and Girton College in 1870, the first university for women opened by Emily Davis and Barbara Bodichon. However education boards refused to recognise these establishments and therefore neither did professionals.
The state education system from 1870 until 1914 seemed respond to the campaigns of women, however there was a gender subject divide and there was still a substantial under-representation of females in higher and further education.
Over the course of the twentieth century however, state educational provision had undergone a spectacular expansion. By the latter part of the century, due to many great developments and the introduction of certain policies, provision was available to a far greater proportion of the population than ever before. The 1944 Butler education act was the first of its kind, introducing free compulsory education for all, whilst raising the school leaving age to 15. However, female pupils were taught what was perceived as appropriate for ‘ladies’, and the male pupils were able to learn woodwork and metal skills participate in contact sporting activities and in general obtained a wider education. Also, equal access doesn’t secure equal outcome.
Perhaps the most monumental development in educational policy was the introduction of The National Curriculum in 1988, which was to provide a general, broad education for all children in England and Wales. The curriculum was intended to be a fair model ensuring equality in education, however there was no great focus on female pupils. Both sexes were to study the same core subjects, however there were internal divides in the subjects, especially in technology and physical education. “Will it help schools to provide high quality teaching and learning as well as non-sexist education for all their pupils?” (Ungerson & Kember, 1997). Although if we were to look at current academic achievements we are presented with figures which show girls out performing their male counterparts. We may see this as justice for females within education, however we must question inequalities on boys’ behalf’s.
By looking back at the inequalities in our society we aren’t surprised that many women joined the feminist movement, campaigning for equality and rights. Throughout the years feminism has developed greatly and many forms of it have emerged. These divisions, so to speak, occupy different beliefs and fight for their own perceived ‘rights’. I have outlined two forms of feminism and shall highlight their beliefs with reference to education.
The first group is the Liberal Feminists. Liberal feminism has been described, as the ‘enduring feminism’ as it’s greatly acceptable and accepted in the wider society. It is difficult to argue against this form of feminism as it adopts the idea that everyone is equal and therefore campaigns solely for equality for all. They are greatly concerned with education, as there are many evident inequalities. They look at achievement rates for both sexes, and school and higher education populations, focusing on minorities who are under-represented. Liberal feminists are merely focused on ensuring both males and females have equal access to the educational system, no structural changes are asked for.
As their focus is on equality for all we can assuredly conclude that liberal feminists would be pleased with females current performances, and their focus would be on boys at school. Figures from the department for education in Wakes show that in 2000/1, 57% of girls obtained five or more GCSE’s compared to 46% of boys. “Girls have overtaken boys both in terms of GCSE and A-level passes” (Ungerson & Kember, 1997). Liberal feminists’ main research question would then be why are girls out performing their male counterparts? Another area of concern for them would be the under-representation of ethnic minorities in higher education and in the high academic achievement tables.
Subject choice is another concern of liberal feminists who believe that the choice has an impact on what’s possible for later life. The construction of the national curriculum’s subject choice can also be viewed as problematic, with great emphasis on male subjects such as science and maths. Female subjects are given a lower status, with child development and social studies not even in the compulsory list. This can set a pattern in the child’s head for what is to come in later life; we must question “Is the National curriculum not transmitting male definitions of what constitutes educational knowledge?” (Arnot, 1989).
Statistics taken from the ‘Department for Education and Skills’, for A level subjects in 2001, showed that girls accounted for 71% of English candidates, 75% of religious studies and 72% of social studies. Looking at the subjects socially perceived as ‘male’ we that see they represent a minimal fraction of the group. In physics, for example, only 21% of all candidates were female.
Educational policies are greatly preoccupied with subject choice and the government have attempted to introduce several initiatives to encourage more girls to study the sciences, engineering and other predominantly male subjects. Attempts such as GIST (Girls into science and technology) and ‘Women’s training roadshows’ have been relatively small scale and had little effect at changing choices. Liberal feminists would also argue that there are no equivalent programmes for boys to study languages and childcare.
The second form I am going to discuss is the radical feminists approach, which is quite the opposite, holding the strong belief that men are the oppressors of women. They believe that equality should be merely the basis and campaign for a change in educational systems, not just who is taught but how and by whom? We can therefore suggest that many of the liberal’s research questions regarding education will be the foundation for radical ideology. Radicals seek to challenge school knowledge, what is taught in schools. They emphasise that men dominate our society, especially our education systems, deciding what is taught and how it’s taught. The core of their argument is that there is a need for a structural change in order to create a diverse system and consequentially, society.
Unlike liberal feminists they aren’t at all concerned with males in the education system and see the issue of girls achieving greater as an achievement for females and most importantly for feminists. They would, however, question why girls haven’t over taken boys, or at least caught up with them in the labour market. In 1996/7 in Britain a mere 8.5% of all professors were women yet over half of undergraduates are female, thus confirming their anxieties (Osbourne 1998). Women represent the majority of the workforce in teaching, social work and care – three notably feminine and low paid jobs. Witz (1997) describes this as the ‘sexual division of labour’.
Figures taken from the employment department for 1994 showed that 1 in 5 men were in managerial or administrative jobs, compared to 1 in 10 women. If we are to look at their figures on earnings we are able to see a substantial divide of the sexes. In 1995 ¾ of men were on earnings of £200 plus a week compared to only half of women. A third of women were earning less than £190 a week; the figure for men was a mere 13%.
We are able to see that even following equality of access into education, equality of outcome isn’t guaranteed. This is a topic that would also interest liberal feminists, as it is a question of equality. Perhaps this isn’t in education but we can question whether it is as a result of inequalities in the system. Riddell (1992) suggested that school subjects be presented in such a way as to preserve gender boundaries.
Radical feminists would agree with this. Leading us on to the issue of subject choice within schools. They would argue that men influence all subjects, as they are generally of higher standing within educational institutions and consequentially decide what is taught. “In this context it may be wrong to think of subject choice as an individual choice at all, but a matter of individuals interpreting the cultural knowledge available to them and playing the game of life according to the known rules” (Gambetta, 1987). They would argue that this requires a structural change within the education system, ensuring diversity and a basis of equality at every level. Radicals’ ideas are focused on male domination and female oppression and their questions for education can be perceived as too extreme and impractical. To change the whole educational structure would be a huge task and even when such demands are satisfied its certain that further questions would arise, if not by radical feminist then by another organisation.
Feminism has had a long and sustained relationship with education, with varying forms of feminists focusing on different areas. In this essay I have concentrated on liberal and radical feminists and have shown the research questions each of those would generate for education. Whilst liberal feminists would be pleased with the current education system, to an extent, radical feminists would view it in a very different manner.
From my research I am able to conclude there are many similar questions for education that both liberal and radical feminists would share. This is especially true when it comes to questions of equality, the focus of liberal philosophy and the basis of radical. However, as they both have very distinct beliefs and ideologies, the research questions they have interest in are bound to differ. I have highlighted these differences and drawn contrasts and comparisons between both.
In conclusion, every form of feminism will generate its own research questions; however under the skin of them all is a common goal, equality. This may be for women only or for everyone, however it ties each form together and shows that unity and consensus amongst feminists can be obtained.
