Gender Socialisation

Although it's fairly clear (from writers such as Mead and Oakley) that the primary socialisation process within the family group is influential in terms of creating different gender roles and identities, it doesn't necessarily follow from this that we can easily establish the extent to which these differences translate into educational differences.

In one sense, therefore, we are faced with a classic "chicken and egg" situation. That is, which comes first:

The overall picture is, of course, further complicated by recent changes in the relative educational achievements of males and females.

In the past, it was possible to suggest that parental socialisation produced clear differences in the perceptions and expectations of male and female children (for example, the expectation that males would enter the labour market on a full-time, life-long, basis, whereas the primary female adult role would be a child-rearing, domestic labour, one.

The fact that girls underperformed in the education system was explained in a variety of ways. For example, Abbot and Wallace ("Feminist Perspectives") identify four major areas of the hidden curriculum that apparently disadvantage girls:

a. The academic hierarchy.
b. Stereotyped attitudes.
c. Textbooks.
d. Subject choice and activities.

Similarly, Scott ("Patriarchy in School Textbooks") found three basic themes in her analysis of curriculum materials:

These ideas, however important they may or may not prove to be, are beyond the immediate scope of this particular section and are discussed in more detail in relation to the hidden curriculum and the education system.

In the present, however, it is difficult to see how the recent and fairly rapid changes in overall female performance can be simply traced-back to primary gender socialisation. If anything, one might suspect that changes in wider society (the workplace, for example, and a general change in perceptions for male and female adult roles) are more-likely to have contributed to a change in educational performance. In this respect, the argument here is that the secondary socialisation process is more likely to have influenced male / female social development than the primary socialisation process within the family.

A further complication, however, is added by class, ethnic and regional differences in (female) educational achievement (as, of course, they also complicate the general picture for male educational achievement).

Interestingly, however, it is perhaps significant to note that higher levels of female achievement have coincided with changes to the school curriculum.

For example, the introduction of the GCSE exam (and it's accompanying emphasis on coursework) seems to have benefited females more than males (possibly because girls are more willing to spend extended periods of time working independently).

The introduction of a National Curriculum that specified subjects to be studied by all children may also have benefited females by removing subject choices from students. For example, the fact that mathematics became a compulsory part of the curriculum for all students up to GCSE level meant that large numbers of girls no-longer "dropped-out" of this subject at the earliest possible opportunity, leading to an overall improvement in female levels of achievement.

Similarly, the appearance of science (like maths, traditionally perceived as a "male subject") as a core part of the curriculum has meant that larger numbers of females achieved more in this area.

Finally, however, the above suggests one way in which primary gender socialisation may influence the educational process (and, by extension, differences in levels of achievement) and that is in terms of a gendered curriculum. This is the idea that males and females are encouraged to study different subjects. Some subjects becoming seen as male, some as female and some as gender neutral.

Over the past 100 years, explicit curriculum differences have been progressively eliminated. As Taylor et al ("Sociology In Focus", 1996), for example, note:

"The 1902 Education Act made domestic subjects such as cookery and needlework compulsory for girls but not for boys…During the 20th century…the tradition of girls doing home economics and boys woodwork and metalwork has been largely replaced by technology for all pupils.".

One explanation for the fact that girls perform as well as boys academically but tend to avoid certain subjects) is that when girls enter education they have a problem:

a. They are taught, as part of the secondary socialisation process in schools, that they are the equal of boys and that their eventual achievement will be on merit (that is, girls are not actively discriminated against - although there is evidence of passive forms of gender discrimination).

b. Their primary socialisation has taught them that there are some areas of the social world that are not considered, in our society, to be feminine.

This situation creates a problem of anomie. In this instance a conflict over role expectations and the ideology that surrounds male and female roles. For example:

Thus, girls are secondary socialised into ideological assumptions about competing and succeeding at school. Primary socialisation, however, teaches them that some areas of work (and the curriculum) are off-limits. If they insist on studying those areas then they run the risk of attracting a deviant label ("unfeminine" is probably one way of expressing it...).

Girls resolve this problem by avoiding certain subjects classified as masculine (such as the natural sciences) and opting for subjects classified as feminine (such as modern languages) or socially neutral (such as English literature). For males the above process also holds true, except it is largely reversed.

The significance of a gendered curriculum is that boys and girls become segregated within the school in a way that channels girls into a relatively narrow range of future occupations (usually those that reflect social stereotypes about women and affective roles - the teaching, nursing and social work professions, for example).

Although this theory explains why some boys and girls take certain types of subject, the fact that not all boys and girls stick to gender appropriate subjects indicates that the theory cannot fully explain the gendered curriculum.

Additionally, at GCSE level and below a National Curriculum has meant that blatant forms of gender association are no-longer as much in evidence, since all pupils are expected to follow the same basic curriculum. This may eliminate some forms of gender association (especially in GCSE subjects such as maths, which all children are now expected to take).

It is not clear why some subjects, such as sociology and psychology should be female gendered. One explanation - that they are seen as easier - is plausible since it keys into traditional assumptions about the relative abilities of males and females. However, if this were the case, as evidence of female achievements become more widely known, we would expect this situation to change.

Alternatively, the association with social science and social work, teaching, nursing and so forth might explain the gendering of these subjects, since such careers are still highly gendered in our society.

Anomie theory does seem to offer a general explanation as to the process of the curriculum becoming gendered, especially in the higher levels of the education system where students are free to pick the subjects they want to follow.

In particular, one of the strengths of this theory is that it relates events in the wider world (work, the secondary socialisation of males and females) to individual choices and shows how wider social structures influence such choices. In this respect, anomie theory can be used to explain why patterns of gendered subjects develop.

To conclude, therefore, it is evident that primary gender socialisation does have some influence on perceptions and expectations in the educational system. When we add in factors such as class and ethnic background to this equation it perhaps becomes easier to see how such socialisation must have some form of influence.

However, it's one thing to note the possibility of such influence and quite another to argue that primary socialisation alone can account for differences in educational achievement. In this respect, the case either for or against parents being the prime culprits in this case is, at best, unproven...