There are inequalities in the level and type of education and training that women receive, compared with men. Recent research into the education and training of women revealed that although women have increased their levels of education and training, there are notable differences in the training of men and women, with men still receiving more training than women and some groups of women being more disadvantaged than others. Bimrose et al. (2003) argue:

• Women undertake more training related to their personal development than men, whereas men participate in more taught training courses related to their current or previous employment than women.
• Consequently, women are more likely to undertake training within a college and pay for it themselves, whereas men are more likely to undertake training at work, which is funded by their employer.
• Significantly more women than men are unable to participate in education and training courses because of their caring responsibilities.
• There are significant differences in the training received by women working full-time and part-time.
• Women educated to degree level are more likely to receive training than those with fewer qualifications.
• In educational settings women and men are now performing equally in most subject areas, but there are significant gender differences in the subject areas studied by men and women:
• with the exception of biological sciences where women dominate, men dominate science subjects:
• women are over-represented in education and humanities, and men are over-represented in engineering and technology
• at degree level, the subjects studied by men and women are similar to those chosen at A/AS
• There is prominent gender segregation in Modern Apprenticeship schemes.

For more on the research findings of this research, follow this link Executive summary. 

What are the barriers in gaining access to job related training for women?

There are also gendered inequalities in access to job related training. Callender and Metcalf’s (1997) study of Women and training included a comprehensive review of published research in the field, with 'training' including all vocational training provided by the public and private sector outside the education system. These authors pointed to those groups of women who were most disadvantaged in terms of their access to job-related training:

• women with children
• women returners
• part-timers
• women with no or low level qualifications
• women at the base of the occupational hierarchy, and
• women in low paid jobs.

Lack of access to training was associated with a range of barriers: structural, organisational, institutional, and attitudinal, as well as women’s own attitudes and the distribution of labour and finances within households. Factors which limited women’s chances of training were

• being employed part-time
• being married or cohabiting, and
• having children under the age of five and especially under the age of two.

This report did not point to general discrimination against women in training provision, but highlighted limitations to access associated with the above factors. Otherwise, men and women seemed, by and large, to fare similarly in most industries and most occupations, irrespective of workplace size, and also taking account of similar types of qualification, being the same age, having the same length of service and ethnic background. These authors conclude: 'However, the findings do suggest that over a lifetime, the average woman is likely to receive less training than a man in similar circumstances. This is due to most women marrying and having children' (Callender and Metcalf 1997: iii).

Research conducted as part of the Economic and Social Research Council’s Learning Society programme did point to gender disparity in opportunities for training and development. One example is Rees, Gorard, Fevre and Furlong (2000) whose research in South Wales was based on a large scale questionnaire survey, in-depth semi-structured interviews and archival analysis. They found significantly different gender patterns between post-school participation in learning and pointed to the complexity of assessing the choices made by individuals:

Many older women describe the ways in which the learning opportunities available to them were limited by local employment, social expectations as to what was appropriate or by a ‘forced altruism’ with respect to family commitments… It is clear that, to make sense of individual’s leaning histories, it is necessary to understand the ways in which learning opportunities were understood when decisions over participation were being made (Rees, Gorard, Fevre and Furlong 2000: 183).

Want to know more:

EOC (1998) Gender and Differential Achievement in Education and Training: A Research Review, Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission

Walby, S. (2007) Gender (in)equality and the future of work, Working Paper Series 55, Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission

The Equal Opportunities Commission also provides links to material on gender stereotyping in education, training and employment.

EOC (2007) Moving on up? the way forward: final report concluding two year investigation into the employment of ethnic minority women, Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission.


Heather Rolfe and Sadia Nadeem (2007) Opening up opportunities through advice and guidance: Gendered analysis of publicly-funded information, advice and guidance provided to young people and adults. Working Paper Series 49, Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission


References:

• Bimrose, J., Green, A., Barnes, S. and Orton, M. (2003) Improving the participation of Women in the Labour Market: Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry: Institute for Employment Research, University of Warwick.
• Callender, C. and Metcalf, H. (1997) Women and training, London: DfEE
  
• Rees, G. and Gorard, S. and Fevre, R. and Furlong, J. (2000) Participating in the Learning Society: history, place and biography. In F. Coffield (Ed) Differing Visions of a Learning Society: research findings. Volume 2. Bristol: Policy Press.