Background to the Research

• Drawing on the findings of a project which focused specifically on equal opportunities in YTP, this chapter explores why a training programme, which on the face of it ought to provide girls with the opportunity to avail themselves with the full range of training options and participate full in all sections of the labour market, in practice replicates and reinforces existing gender divisions in the labour market. This summary details the section of chapter which draws upon interviews with scheme managers, staff and trainees.

Research Approach

• The study was of the day-to-day practice of six schemes providing training under YTP. The study employed a range of techniques including a series of semi-structured interviews with scheme managers and a sample of scheme staff (N=20), semi-structured interviews and group discussions with a sample of trainees (N=88; 43 girls and 45 boys) which were supplemented by information obtained from questionnaires, observation of training procedures and informal discussions with staff and trainees.

Main Findings

• Gender segregation was evident in all of the schemes visited, with few girls or boys pursuing non traditional training. All scheme managers and staff were asked for their views on gender segregation in training and whilst aware that training in their own schemes was highly segregated by sex, this was perceived as a 'fact of life' by the majority of scheme staff, rather than an issue that ought to be addressed.
  
  
• Attitudes to non-traditional training were more complex and in broad terms, staff reactions were of three main types; unqualified support, qualified support and resistance.
  
  
• Unqualified support for girls and boys crossing gender boundaries in training was rare; only two interviewees state that they would give their total support to a young person of either sex wishing to undertake training in a nontraditional field.
  
  
• Qualified support some staff expressed was rooted in two factors: traditional attitudes regarding the relative appropriateness of particular jobs for girls and boys and concern about the future employability of trainees.
  
  
• The third response, characterised by direct resistance to nontraditional training was fairly widespread, with over half of the 20 staff interviewed stating they would not personally be in favour of girls and boys crossing the gender boundaries in training and some, indeed stating quite explicitly that this should be actively discouraged. Again, this response was rooted in and justified by a concern for young people's future employability.
  
  
• Not surprisingly, when asked whether they would favour initiatives in their own schemes to encourage nontraditional training, the majority of staff expressed little support.
  
  
• A further factor at work relating to staff thinking was related to 'choice' and the need, as they saw it, to protect trainee choice. Perceiving gender segregation in training as a result of young people's free choice, meant it was a 'fact of life' and hence outside the responsibility of staff. In addition, in several of the schemes visited, staff appeared to equate initiatives designed to encourage young people to avail of themselves of the full range of training opportunities with 'forcing young people to do something they don't want to do'. Instead, the 'push' they felt, should come from the young people themselves.
  
  
• Since all training places were perceived as open to all, gender segregation was attributed to young people's free choice although, with an expectation that girls and boys would want a traditional training place. This was clearly in evidence in the scheme's promotional literature. Furthermore, in the course of interviews prior to training, none of the schemes provided young people with information in the full range of training available.
  
  
• A number of girls in the study (N=11) stated that they had considered nontraditional training, (e.g. mechanic, painting/decorating) yet all but one of the girls were training for traditional female jobs at the time of the visit.
  
  
• From the interviews, it would appear that by the time they reach YTP, some girls will have given up hope and settled for the safe option of gender congruent training. The role of school experience was mentioned as a contributing factor in this decision by a number of girls who stated that they never had the chance to study relevant 'boys' subjects at school and were unsure what they would be letting themselves in for, were they to change direction.
  
  
• There was evidence too that the careers advice girls receive may discourage nontraditional training, as may parental attitudes.
  
  
• Despite these barriers, the interviews suggest that some girls do come to YTP to obtain nontraditional training. From their experiences in trying to obtain such it training it has been possible to identify three processes at work within the programme which act to exclude them from nontraditional training; direct discrimination from staff who prevent access, attempts to channel girls into traditional areas by the imposition of double standards and sexual harassment by male trainees in the training environment.
  
  
• There was evidence that staff attitudes may result in direct and explicit discouragement and in at least one scheme visited, there may have been actions or behaviours which would contravene the provisions of the sex discrimination legislation in that girls reported that they had been told that courses were not open to them.
  
  
• Another, but no less effective, barrier to nontraditional training was the channeling of girls away from this by imposing a series of double standards for boys and girls. There was evidence to suggest that girls who wish to pursue a nontraditional training course had to prove a higher level of commitment and interest than boys and that their motives had to be legitimate. There is also evidence that girls also have to prove that they are tougher and more resilient than other girls, tougher even than other boys.
  
  
• In YTP the interviews suggest that girls receive little support when they opt for nontraditional training with few concessions made for lack of confidence or discomfort when faced with a male environment. In most cases, staff were simply unaware of the real difficulties girls experience in nontraditional training.