Showing posts with label gender gap. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender gap. Show all posts

Thursday, March 8, 2018

Why access to quality early childhood education and care is a key driver of women’s labour market participation

  by Eric Charbonnier, Analyst, Directorate for Education and Skills



We are in 1961. JF Kennedy is president and has just designated Eleanor Roosevelt as chairwoman of the new US Commission on the Status of Women: "We want to be sure that women are used as effectively as they can to provide a better life for our people, in addition to meeting their primary responsibility, which is in the home." Fifty-seven years ago, women had to make a choice between pursuing a career or having children. Back then, access to early childhood education and care (ECEC) services was reserved for the elite and was not considered a policy priority; maternity leave was rare, while paternity leave was unheard of. This may seem strange now, but just try to think of society in the 1960s. Just think how far we have come since then: In 1961, only 38 % of women were employed in the United States. In 2015, this figure was at 70%.

Don’t be fooled by the upbeat statistics though. Two generations later, inequalities still exist.  Although women are more engaged in the labour market, they are still three times more likely to be employed in part-time positions than men. They are also less likely to be employed in higher-paid occupations, and less likely to progress in their careers. However, mindsets have evolved, and combining a career and a family for women is no longer the heresy it used to be.  As a recent example, the current Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, announced some months ago both her first pregnancy and her husband’s paternity leave: "I’ll be Prime Minister AND a mum, and Clarke will be “first man of fishing” and stay- at- home dad." The news was generally well--received, a stark contrast to 1961 when low provision of early childhood services and other work-family provision would have made such a decision virtually impossible.

This month’s Education Indicators in Focus brief takes a closer look at how provision of early childhood education and care has affected the participation of women in the labour market over the years. In the last half century, women’s labour force participation has increased dramatically in most countries. The rise in ECEC provision over this period has greatly contributed to this change, particularly for mothers with a child under the age of 3. As shown in the figure above, both components are strongly associated. However, there are substantial cross-country differences. In countries where mothers’ labour market participation rates are the highest, the proportions of very young children enrolled in early childhood services are also the highest (see quadrant on the top-right). By contrast, combining childrearing and employment is most difficult in some eastern  European countries (the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, the Slovak Republic), as well as in Mexico (see quadrant on the bottom-left), partly because these services are under-developed in those countries.

The availability of early childhood services plays a key role in the increased labour force participation rates among women. This in turn has public benefits in terms of higher contributions to society and to economic growth.  But having a good access to such services is not sufficient. The number of ECEC hours per week available to young children is paramount to increasing the full-time participation of mothers in the labour market. For that reason, many OECD countries have recently increased the number of free hours of ECEC entitlements, or shifted from half-day to full-day kindergartens. However, here again, wide variations among countries still exist. Countries with both high levels of participation in early childhood education and care and greater intensity of participation (in hours per week), such as Nordic countries, are in general those in which most mothers work full-time.

Women’s participation in work does not only make economic sense for a nation, but the benefits of early childhood services towards better learning for the children themselves are also now widely acknowledged. In this context, it is not surprising that ECEC has experienced a surge of policy attention in the last fifteen years. However, despite many initiatives over this period to increase access, equity and quality of these services across OECD countries, affordability remains a key challenge in most of them. It is true (and a positive step) that governments often provide various schemes to help reduce the cost of early childhood services for poorer families (including cash transfers, rebates and tax reductions), but these efforts are still insufficient. Thus, children under the age of 3 in most countries are more likely to be enrolled in ECEC if they come from relatively advantaged socio-economic backgrounds or if their mother has completed a tertiary education degree.

Society has progressed a lot in fifty-seven years. Who would have thought in 1961 that someday women would no longer have to make a choice between their career and raising a family? Stronger access and provision to early childhood education and care services has greatly contributed to more equity in the workforce, but more is needed to ensure fully equal participation of men and women, whether at work or at home. Hopefully we will not have to wait another half century to see that happen.

Links
Education Indicators in Focus No. 59 - How does access to early childhood education services affect the participation of women in the labour market?
OECD Early Childhood Education and Care
Starting Strong 2017: Key OECD Indicators on Early Childhood Education and Care



Monday, October 30, 2017

The fork in the road towards gender equality

by Simon Normandeau
Statistician, Directorate for Education and Skills


Gender biases can be persistent. Too persistent. A simple exercise to illustrate the point: Picture a doctor or a professor. You will most likely think of a man. Now think of nurses and teachers and you are likely to imagine a woman. This unconscious gender bias is rooted in years of associating male and female attributes to specific roles in society. Inevitably, it also influences students’ career choices.

Gender differences in career aspirations are set early on. Children tend to mimic the social environment in which they grew up: boys are more drawn towards male-dominated fields while girls aspire to careers held by inspirational role models of their own gender. By the age of 15, boys and girls have already been regularly exposed to one of the most strongly gender-biased professions: teaching. On average across OECD countries, 83% of primary teachers are women; and this proportion shows no sign of shrinking anytime soon. 

Careers in science show the opposite trend. Data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) show that even if boys and girls have similar scores in science, girls are less likely than boys to envision themselves in a science-related career when they are 30. This demonstrates that aspirations to pursue a career in science are not necessarily determined by students’ aptitude in these fields.

Data on fields of study released in Education at a Glance 2017 and analysed in a new Education Indicators in Focus confirm that the gender disparities observed in career aspirations in the PISA study are alive and well in tertiary education too. Three out of four students entering the field of education are women; but only one out of four entering the field of engineering, manufacturing and construction is female. Moreover, the share of women entering a programme in engineering, manufacturing and construction is even smaller than the share of 15-year-old girls who aspire to work in science and engineering, showing the effect of social norms over just a few years, and their impact on all-important career decisions. 

From school to university, gender disparities then spill over into the labour market. The figure above shows that the field of study a young woman selects has consequences for her employment after graduation. Women who graduated from health and welfare and education programmes are more likely to be employed than women who graduated from male-dominated programmes, such as engineering, manufacture and construction. But the figure also shows that no matter which field of study they choose, women are always less likely than men to be employed – and the widest gender gaps are found among graduates from science-related fields.

Gender disparities accumulate throughout life. Thus, ensuring equal opportunities to girls and boys to pursue the field of study of their choice, regardless of stereotypes and societal gender imbalances, is a critical step towards more equity in the labour market. Gender diversity in professions also creates value by encouraging a variety of thought and opinion in the workplace. Studies have shown that gender diversity in companies brings higher financial returns, a better reputation and improved internal communication. 

Gender diversity is at the heart of Goal 5 of the Sustainable Development Goals, which aims to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls by 2030. While some progress has already been made, gender equality is still a target to be reached, and gender bias, whether conscious or unconscious, still a barrier to be dismantled. Education systems have a role to play in promoting and valuing the success of girls in different career paths, to encourage them to pursue their studies in fields that are increasingly valued in the labour market – and currently dominated by men. 

Links 

Join our OECD Teacher Community on Edmodo

Monday, February 27, 2017

Doctors and nurses are from Venus, scientists and engineers are from Mars (for now)

By Francesco Avvisati 
Analyst, OECD Directorate for Education and Skills

There is little doubt that in OECD countries, the chances for boys and girls to succeed and contribute to society have become more equal over the past century. Every International Women’s Day, however, we are also reminded of the remaining obstacles towards gender equality. This month’s PISA in Focus illustrates both the progress that enables girls today to aspire to roles once exclusively reserved for men, and the remaining obstacles on the road to closing gender gaps.

The progress can be readily seen in the health sector. Only a generation ago, in most countries, women represented only a minority among doctors; today, in many hospitals, the majority of young doctors are women. That trend is likely to continue, if you trust current patterns of enrolment in tertiary health-related programmes and in girls’ expectations for their own future careers.

But not all science-related occupations saw similar progress for women. Very few women have top academic positions in physics, for instance, and the last time a Nobel prize in physics was awarded to a woman was in 1963. Meanwhile, new occupations in the emerging information and communication technology industries are often, and overwhelmingly, dominated by men. These trends are unlikely to reverse in the near future, in the absence of targeted efforts. In 2015, when PISA asked students about the occupation they expect to be working in when they are 30 years old, boys were more than twice as likely as girls to cite a career as scientist or engineering professional. Only 0.4% of girls, but 4.8% of boys, said they expected a career as software developer or information and communication technology professional.

Occupational segregation – the fact that women and men work in different occupations, even in closely related fields – is a leading cause of the persistent wage gaps between the genders. Countries that support boys and girls alike in the pursuit of science-related careers may not only reduce pay gaps between men and women, but also ensure that no talent for innovation and growth is wasted – to the benefit of all.

Look at the contributions to society made by Françoise Barré-Sinoussi (who was involved in the work that identified the human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] as the cause of AIDS), Grace Hopper (a US Navy Rear Admiral and computer scientist who was one of the first programmers of the Harvard Mark I computer and invented the first compiler for a computer programming language) and Marie Curie (a pioneer in research on radioactivity and winner of two Nobel prizes – in two different science disciplines), to name just three women who were innovators in their chosen fields of science. An International Day of Women and Girls in Science, celebrated earlier this month, serves as an annual reminder that women do have a place in these fields and that they should be encouraged to occupy it. But wouldn’t it be more beneficial to everyone if we acted on that understanding every single day?

Links
PISA in Focus No. 69: What kind of careers in science do 15-year-old boys and girls expect for themselves?
PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education
Education at a Glance 2016
Closing the Gender Gap: Act Now
Health at a Glance 2015
International Women's Day