techdirections February 2013 : Page 14

A Peer-Reviewed Article Gender Equity Issues in CTE and STEM Education Economic and Social Implications By Thomas V. Toglia Thomas.Toglia@enmu.edu W HEN most people talk about Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, they are usu-ally discussing athletic programs for girls and women. While Title IX does relate to proportionate participa-tion of female students in sports, it also has signiﬁcant implications for gender equity in career and technical education (CTE) and science, tech-nology, engineering, and mathemat-ics (STEM) programs. Title IX of the Educational Amend-ments of 1972 speciﬁcally states that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the beneﬁts of, or be subjected to dis-crimination under any [italics added] education program or activity receiv-ing federal ﬁnancial assistance” (Kap-lin & Lee, 2006, p. 1462). Despite this legislation, some 35 years later, girls and women continue to be underrep-resented in nontraditional CTE and STEM programs (National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, 2008). Title IX has caused some changes to occur in athletics during this time period. Since athletic programs Thomas V. Toglia is an associate professor/graduate coordinator, De-partment of Professional Technical Education, College of Education and Technology, Eastern New Mexico Uni-versity, Portales. tend to be highly visible, many high schools, colleges, and universi-ties seeking to comply with Title IX added programs such as women’s softball and track. However, in the not-so-visible CTE programs, very Nontraditional Participation Trends The U.S. Department of Labor (2009) deﬁnes a nontraditional oc-cupation for women as “one in which women comprise 25% or less of total employment” (¶ 1). With this in mind, an examination of enrollment trends in CTE courses conducted by the National Women’s Law Center found the following: Female students make up 98% of the students enrolled in cosmetology, 87% of childcare students, and 86% of those in health-related courses. Cor-respondingly, girls are largely absent from traditionally male courses, comprising only 4% of heating, A/C, and refrigeration students, 5% of welding stu-dents, 6% of electrician and plumber/pipeﬁtter students, and 9% of automotive students. (Na-tional Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, 2008, p. 22) More than 30 years after Congress outlawed sex discrimination in education, the gender divide in career and technical education (CTE) has narrowed barely at all. few changes have occurred. In fact, the National Women’s Law Center (2005) reports that “more than 30 years after Congress outlawed sex discrimination in education, the gender divide in career and technical education (CTE) has narrowed barely at all” (p. 2). Legislatively, in order to increase the participation of girls and women in nontraditional career training, the Carl D. Perkins Act of 1984 required that states assign an individual, known as the “sex equity coordina-tor,” to direct efforts to overcome gender bias and stereotyping in voca-tional education (Gathercoal & Stern, 1987; NWLC, 2003). Unfortunately, when Perkins was reauthorized in 1990, just 3% of federal funds were required to be allocated to gender equity programs. 14 tech directions X FEBRUARY 2013

Gender Equity Issues in CTE and STEM Education

Thomas V. Toglia

Economic and Social Implications WHEN most people talk about Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, they are usually discussing athletic programs for girls and women. While Title IX does relate to proportionate participation of female students in sports, it also has significant implications for gender equity in career and technical education (CTE) and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs. Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 specifically states that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any [italics added] education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance” (Kaplin & Lee, 2006, p. 1462). Despite this legislation, some 35 years later, girls and women continue to be underrepresented in nontraditional CTE and STEM programs (National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, 2008). Title IX has caused some changes to occur in athletics during this time period. Since athletic programs tend to be highly visible, many high schools, colleges, and universities seeking to comply with Title IX added programs such as women’s softball and track. However, in the not-so-visible CTE programs, very few changes have occurred. In fact, the National Women’s Law Center (2005) reports that “more than 30 years after Congress outlawed sex discrimination in education, the gender divide in career and technical education (CTE) has narrowed barely at all” (p. 2). Nontraditional Participation Trends The U.S. Department of Labor (2009) defines a nontraditional occupation for women as “one in which women comprise 25% or less of total employment” (¶ 1). With this in mind, an examination of enrollment trends in CTE courses conducted by the National Women’s Law Center found the following: Female students make up 98% of the students enrolled in cosmetology, 87% of childcare students, and 86% of those in health-related courses. Correspondingly, girls are largely absent from traditionally male courses, comprising only 4% of heating, A/C, and refrigeration students, 5% of welding students, 6% of electrician and plumber/pipefitter students, and 9% of automotive students. (National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, 2008, p. 22) Legislatively, in order to increase the participation of girls and women in nontraditional career training, the Carl D. Perkins Act of 1984 required that states assign an individual, known as the “sex equity coordinator,” to direct efforts to overcome gender bias and stereotyping in vocational education (Gathercoal & Stern, 1987; NWLC, 2003). Unfortunately, when Perkins was reauthorized in 1990, just 3% of federal funds were required to be allocated to gender equity programs. Also, in 1998, when the Carl D. Perkins Act was once again reauthorized (this time known as Perkins III), gender equity activities were again reduced and the requirement of states to maintain a full-time equity coordinator was eliminated. However, Perkins III did require states to spend $60,000 on gender equity-related activities and to set aside 10.5% of funding for sex equity programs that serve single parents, single pregnant women, and displaced homemakers (Scott & Sarkees-Wircenski, 2008). Furthermore, according to Gordon (2008), the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006 (often referred to as Perkins IV) continued “to push for race and gender equity” (p. 143). More specifically, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006, while speaking to gender equity and addressing performance measures, states: Core indicators of performance must be defined for secondary and postsecondary CTE students in the state plan. These indicators must be valid and reliable, and at a minimum, must include . . . student participation in, and completion of, CTE programs that lead to employment in nontraditional fields. (ACTE, p. 76) It’s important to note that according to the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education (2008) the wording in Perkins IV may encourage progress toward gender equity since it requires states to meet specific targets regarding the enrollment and completion of nontraditional training and, if not met, they may lose federal funding. Gender Equity and STEM The STEM fields, related to and overlapping CTE, also have the concern of women and girls being seriously underrepresented (Hyslop, 2010; Robelen, 2011). For example, according to the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (2007) women make up approximately 50% of the total workforce, yet only comprise 20% of the nation’s scientific and technological workers. The U.S. Department of Commerce further reports that “only one in seven engineers is female . . . [and] women have shown no growth in STEM jobs since 2000” (Robelen, 2011, ¶ 1). Moreover, according researchers, many biases such as classroom climate, stereotypes, and discrimination that lead to such disparities begin effecting girls as early as middle school (Carnevale, Smith, & Melton, 2011). Factors Influencing Women and Girls’ Career Choices Numerous factors influence the career choices of women and girls. According to Gottfredson (as cited in Lufkin & Wiberg, 2007), career selection due to gender-role socialization begins at an early age. In fact, Gottfredson reports that human development research “finds that children as young as ages six to eight years begin to eliminate career choices because they are the wrong sex type [and] by early adolescence, students already have strongly defined gender- role expectations about work” (p. 430). Research (Khallad, 2000; Watson et al., 2002, as cited in Domenico & Jones, 2007) suggests that these influences that develop early in childhood are a result of factors such as socioeconomic status, parents’ occupations and education levels, and parental expectations. More specifically, research indicates that women and girls from low income families have limited and unrealized career expectations and face more obstacles that reduce their career aspiration level. And, in particular, the occupational status, level of education, and expectations of young girls’ mothers has a great impact on girls’ career choices (Burlin, 1976; Gottfredson, 1981; Trusty, 2002, as cited in Domenico & Jones, 2007). Finally, there is evidence that guidance counselors have a significant effect on the career choices made by women and girls. And, of relevance to this discussion, research suggests that counselors often lack information and training related to gender-free counseling. This—coupled with culturally acceptable perceptions regarding gender roles and occupational choices—can result in counselors directing women and girls away from nontraditional careers (Burger & Sandy, 2002). Consequences of Gender Equity Concerns The lack of women and girls pursuing nontraditional careers has significant economic and social implications. From an economic perspective, the traditional female careers into which significant numbers of girls are directed pay substantially lower wages than nontraditional fields. For example, in the field of cosmetology, in which girls represent 98% of the students, workers typically earn a median wage of $9.52 per hour, yet in the electricians’ field, in which girls comprise only 6% of students, the median earnings are more than twice as much, at $20.33 per hour (National Women’s Law Center, 2005). According to studies conducted by the National Women’s Law Center, these disparities exist throughout other traditionally female and male occupations and have led to the conclusion that “the wage data clearly show that the fields that girls have traditionally been encouraged to enter—and for which they continue to prepare in large numbers in CTE today—provide much lower wages than do the fields that boys are entering” (p. 8). In terms of social consequences of gender inequity, for example, Daines, Hartenstein, and Birch (2000) state that the lack of access to work and education or training opportunities for women “is a societal problem that results in underdeveloped human resources . . . . It also limits a nation’s development, for a nation’s ability to have a healthy economy directly relates to developing its human resources” (p. 22). The disparity in gender equity affects not only girls and women, but men and boys as well. For example, “boys also are disadvantaged by . . . [disproportionate] enrollment patterns, because they may be missing out on opportunities to pursue promising positions in high-demand and high-growth fields, such as nursing and other health-related careers” (ACTE, NAPE, NASDCTEc, & NWLC, 2009, p. 3). In addition, men who work in nontraditional occupations for their gender face institutionalized challenges, as well as intimidating behaviors, stereotypes that prevent full participation, and job-placement difficulties (Henson & Rodgers; Thurtle, Hammond, & Jennings, as cited in Lufkin & Wiberg, 2007). Strategies to Improve Gender Equity Despite the dismal statistics, much can be done to improve access and success for individuals pursuing careers that are nontraditional for their gender. For example, a great deal can be learned from programs and organizations that have developed strategies to address these disparities. An examination of the Programs and Practices That Work: Preparing Students for Nontraditional Careers Award Program, jointly sponsored by the Association for Career and Technical Education, the National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity, the National Association of State Directors of Career and Technical Education Consortium, and the National Women’s Law Center, reveals several encouraging approaches. Common practices among previous award winners that have succeeded in increasing the enrollment and retention of under-represented students in CTE programs include the development of mentoring programs that pair women and girls with female role models, providing peer and institutional support for those pursuing traditionally male fields of study, and the implementation of recruitment programs that provide early exposure to nontraditional occupations (ACTE et al., 2009). In addition, Lufkin and Wiberg (2007) recommend removing educational materials that depict genderbiased messages and providing teachers with gender-equity professional development opportunities in order to break down stereotypes and increase the options for both men and women in nontraditional careers. In particular, given that parents have a significant impact regarding a student’s decision to pursue a nontraditional career, Lufkin and Wiberg further suggest implementing parent education programs that disseminate accurate information related to career choices in nontraditional occupations. Given the significant role that guidance counselors play in the career development of women and girls, the American Association of University Women (2011) recommends “that counselors receive ongoing training to ensure that female students exploring career and technical education are provided comprehensive and unbiased information about their full range of options [and] that counselors be trained not to track women into ‘female dominated occupations’” (pp. 5-6). In addition, Silverman and Pritchard (1993) suggest that counselors make gender equity a distinct focus of career fairs, work with instructors and administrators to establish a gender equity team to address recruitment, and bring female guest speakers into classrooms to talk about nontraditional occupations. Finally, research summarized by Gordon (2008) suggests that there are several additional strategies that could broaden the scope of nontraditional opportunities for girls and women. These include: • Provide career exploration activities. • Treat students equally. • Bring nontraditional students and nontraditional workers to the attention of all students through panel presentations and career-day conferences. • Recognize the achievements of nontraditional students. • Include assertiveness training as a part of an overall curriculum. • Work with employers to help them obtain highly skilled workers, regardless of gender. (p. 131) Conclusion The goal of achieving gender equity should be a priority for all CTE and STEM instructors and administrators. This appears to be particularly important given that Culver and Burge report that “teachers’ behavior and attitudes can provide the greatest influence on their students’ success in achieving gender equity in the educational and occupational spheres” (as cited in Hayden, 2005, p. 92). Finally, according to Hanson, Guilfoy, and Pillai (2009,) “[G]ender equity makes life better for everyone . . . . Multicultural, inclusive gender equity strengthens workplaces, schools, and communities” (p. xix). Clearly, to not address the under-representation particularly of women and girls in nontraditional careers results in losses for individuals and society.

Previous Page Next Page

Publication List
Using a screen reader? Click Here