Analysis of the legislation in place across Member States and the findings from the interviews with national stakeholders appear to suggest that appropriate frameworks are in place to prevent and tackle reported incidents of sex discrimination in access to education.
Across the EU no Member State has adopted official indicators for measuring the effectiveness of anti-discrimination legislation. In the absence of indicators and a high number of reported
75 However, section 2.3.6.1 provided a discussion of gender differences, which typically affects vulnerable groups, such as individuals from ethnic and religious minority groups, students with special educational needs gifted and talented students, transgender students and those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Interviewees believe that gender inequalities persist, though some thought that it was often associated with the content of education and outcomes rather than access to education. In examining the effectiveness of legislative and non-legislative measures it is important to consider why such inequalities persist as it provides necessary evidence to understand whether actions are required to eradicate this issue. As specified in sections 2.3.6.1 to 2.3.6.3 interviewees provided different reasons why gender inequalities persist as well as why sometimes discrimination remains unreported:
▪
Members of historically discriminated groups might not trust the authorities and thus they do not report incidents of discrimination to them;▪
Parents, students and teachers themselves might not be aware of the legislation or of the channels through which complaints are reported;▪
Education authorities might pay inadequate consideration to the needs of members of particular groups (e.g. Muslim girls);▪
Key actors might have internalised gender roles and pay insufficient or limited attention to the reproduction of gender stereotypes in education; and▪
Parents are in a subordinate position with respect to schools – they are the weaker party in a power relation which can discourage them to raise complaints.By its very nature, the precise scale and scope of unreported discrimination is unknown. 5.3.1 Effectiveness of legislative measures
In the course of the in-country fieldwork, researchers explored whether stakeholders considered the current national legislative measures effective in discouraging sex discrimination in access to education.
Study participants across the 27 Member States responded to the question as to whether the current national legislative measures are effective in discouraging sex discrimination in access to education. The overwhelming majority of those considered that the current legal framework is effective.
Concerning the follow up questions on the various aspects of the effectiveness of the legislative framework, most interviewees across Europe confirmed that they considered relevant anti- discrimination provisions to be:
▪
Visible within the legislation and used when needed;▪
Fit for purpose; and▪
Well known and understood.This latter point, on the legislation being well known and understood, contradicts the findings presented in section 2.3.6 and section 5.3 above that found that members of vulnerable groups may not be fully aware of their rights. There are two issues here: whether members of vulnerable groups are indeed aware of and understand their rights, but also equally important whether they are prepared to exercise their rights through a complaints process.
Table 5.1 below provides an overview of the responses to this question in individual Member States. As detailed below in most cases stakeholders believed that the relevant provisions are visible within legislation and used when needed, perceived to be fit for purpose and well known and understood. In a few instances some concerns were raised. Further information about these issues is provided overleaf about each one of these three areas.
76 Table 5.1 Detailed views on the effectiveness of the legislation
Visible within legislation and used when needed
Perceived to be fit for purpose
Well known and understood
Yes No Some concerns Yes No Some concerns Yes No Some concerns Austria √ √ √ Belgium √ √ √ Bulgaria √ √ √ Cyprus √ √ √ Czech Republic √ √ √ Denmark √ √ √ Estonia √ √ √ Finland √ √ √ France √ √ √ Germany √ √ √ Greece √ √ √ Hungary √ √ √ Ireland √ √ √ Italy √ √ √ Latvia √ √ √ Lithuania √ √ √ Luxembourg √ √ √ Malta √ √ √ Netherlands √ √ √ Poland √ √ √ Portugal √ √ √ Romania √ √ √ Slovakia √ √ √ Slovenia √ √ √ Spain √ √ √ Sweden √ √ √ UK √ √ √
Source: Stakeholder interviews.
5.3.1.1 Visibility of the legislation (“legislative framework visible within legislation and used when needed”)
Most stakeholders confirmed that the legal framework for anti-discrimination policies is comprehensive and long-established. Legislation typically sends a strong signal that any
discrimination is unacceptable and any practices contradicting this are addressed. In several cases interviewees used as evidence to support their claim the fact that enrolment and participation rates between boys and girls are equal. In addition, they referred to the fact that girls have improved their academic achievement and the educational syllabuses are developed to respond to concerns about the promotion of gender equality.
77 Interviewees in most Member States believed that the existing legislation can be used when needed. However, they further pointed out that this is rarely the case. The limited number of reported complaints was in the view of most study participants, evidence that sex discrimination in access education is a marginal issue in Europe.
Some interviewees though believed that unreported discrimination persists in access to education. In some cases it was noted, for instance, that even in the area of employment, where it is generally acknowledged that gender inequalities persist (as evidenced by the gender pay gap and the low representation of women in management board of companies), reported complaints of sex discrimination are limited. Some interviewees thought that one of the reasons why incidents of discrimination might not be reported to the relevant authorities is because the relevant provisions are not visible within the legislation.
In Cyprus and Greece for example interviewees pointed out that the fact that their countries do not have a single gender equality act means that the existing legislative framework is complex. This might hinder the understanding of existing legislation by parents and potential victims, and make it more difficult for them to use the legislation when needed.
In Estonia, the obligation of the state, local governments and educational institutions to promote gender equality as set out in the Gender Equality Act is deemed to be too vague for officials to understand what is required of them in practice.
Analysis in Chapter 3 clearly shows that constitutional guarantees exist in the majority of Member States and that legislative provisions are in place, but it is important to consider whether simply because a legislative framework exists that all citizens understand their rights.
5.3.1.2 Appropriateness („fit for purpose‟)
In several countries the legislative framework was considered to be appropriate as there is explicit prohibition of sex discrimination in access to education in antidiscrimination laws and education acts. In addition compulsory education was found to be within the scope of the application of the law. Taking this into consideration, interviewees generally confirmed that the existing legislation is considered to be „fit for purpose‟.
However, in some countries though stakeholder interviews identified problems in the following areas:
▪
In a minority of Member States (e.g. CY, PL) there is no explicit prohibition of gender-based discrimination in access to education in education acts. The prohibition on sex discrimination in access to education could be interpreted as „hidden‟ or implicit in the general prohibition on sex discrimination, both in the countries‟ constitution and the general anti-discrimination legislation or gender equality acts in these countries.▪
There are no specific sanctions (or they are set at a very low level) foreseen for violating anti- discrimination provisions. This could mean that the legislation remains declaratory and the enforcement is superficial (RO).The persistence of gender stereotypes in most Member States (see Table 4.5), as evidenced by gendered subject choices or the lack of active promotion of gender equality in schools, highlights a legislative weakness. Gender stereotypes are not addressed by law and thus often persists. 5.3.1.3 Awareness about relevant legislative provisions (“well known and understood”)
Most interviewees pointed out that there is a long tradition in their countries of guaranteeing gender equality in access to compulsory education and the wider public generally knows this exists, understands it and respects this right.
However, some stakeholders pointed out that there is a need to raise the awareness of parents, students and teachers about the relevant legislative provisions (see also sections 5.3 and 5.3.1). Even though Member States‟ existing legislatives frameworks to prohibit sex discrimination in access to education are considered well-developed and comprehensive in the national context, there is a strong concern that the key outstanding challenge is to improve application and
implementation of the gender equality and anti-discrimination agenda in the daily practice. Although the legislation is in place, its implementation requires a host of follow-up actions. Examples
78 mentioned include awareness raising campaigns, the recruitment of more male teachers to provide different role models for boys and girls, making gender training a compulsory part of teacher and school management training etc.
One reason behind concerns about the enforcement of the law is the need to improve the self- reflection and gender awareness of teachers, school managers and other educational staff and across the schools as institutions. The issue of sex discrimination in education is given too little attention and teachers do not think there are any gender-related problems in education. Although during the (initial and further) teacher training courses on gender and specifically gender issues in education are now increasingly offered across the Member States, they are often to be taken on voluntary basis.
Moreover, there is little awareness in schools about how to tackle gender stereotypes and any ongoing (direct and indirect) discrimination that remains unreported. Educational officials often do not have a clear practical vision of how the legal provisions of equal opportunities in education should be implemented in practice.
The challenge here would be to find both time and funding for training staff, who are already overworked and who might not perceive gender issues as relevant in their working context. In general, there are few specific gender guidelines relating to day-to-day instruction practice in schools. Examples of such guidelines developed include:
▪
In Ireland, the Department of Education and Skills in conjunction with the Equality Authority produced a comprehensive booklet „Schools and the Equal Status Acts‟ in 2005 which outlines both the relevant legislation and the responsibilities of schools under the legislation. 136▪
In the UK, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has produced guidance for schools on how the Equality Act 2010 will affect their key groups.Another way identified to promote the gender equality agenda in schools is the introduction of a formal requirement for schools to pursue a continual improvement approach concerning gender equality issues underpinned by reflection, monitoring and evaluation:
▪
In Finland, secondary schools have a duty to draw up equality plans. Equality plans are seen as a „statement of will‟ and an important working tool that would require schools to recognise existing gender inequalities and commit to addressing these.▪
The gender equality duty requires schools (in England, Wales and Scotland) to conduct a gender impact assessment which involves collecting data on the influence gender has on subject choices and attainment. However, there is no central point for the analysis of this sort of data. The gender equality duty is a tool to be used at the organisational level.Awareness of the existing legislative framework is also generally low amongst parents and pupils who are considered to be not sufficiently aware of their rights, legislation or mechanisms for its enforcement and for elimination of potential discrimination.
The absence of complaints may be due to parents and/or pupils not being aware of:
▪
The existing legislation and their rights not to be discriminated on the basis of sex. Thus, they might not be able to explicitly articulate they are being discriminated in the education system on the grounds of sex. Or▪
How to lodge a complaint.In addition, existing legal avenues, for instance, civil court action might be perceived to be too costly and time-consuming to start a case.
This problem might be particularly prominent among members of vulnerable groups such as religious and ethnic minority students who often do not report incidents of discrimination
themselves. Incidents become know in most cases if they are brought to justice by NGO‟s active in this area. The problem of vulnerable minority groups is exacerbated because they often do not trust the authorities to report relevant incidents due to historic disadvantages they suffered.
136
79 Parents and pupils could be in an inferior position of power and sub-ordination vis-a-vis the school and could therefore be reluctant to raise a complaint against the school and prefer to find informal solutions in discussions with the school staff. Also, unless it affects the child‟s academic
achievement, a complaint on the basis of sex discrimination might not be seen as „worthy‟ enough to jeopardise relations with the school. Finally, because parents try to get their children into the best schools, hence may not complain even if incidents occur as they want their child to remain in a well-performing school. As well parents may not be concerned about any cases of discrimination if it does not negatively impact on the academic achievement of their child(ren). If the discrimination was to impact negatively on achievement, it could be that parents may be more likely to report an incident to the authorities.
Knowledge and understanding of the legislation might be more difficult in countries that have devolved administrations, where education is a regional competence. Existing provisions might not be well understood by affected individuals. In Germany for instance as education is the
responsibility of Lander, the legal situation in each Lander is different, which might be a hindrance to a good understanding of the existing provisions. The existing laws could also be interpreted differently in relation to the definition of „discrimination‟. This formulation varies, but often the educational acts state that „every child should be supported to the best of their ability‟ and do not use the term „discrimination‟.
Finally, as mentioned in section 5.2 above, there is no regular or direct monitoring and supervision of how the anti-discrimination legislation is applied in the education system in prohibiting sex discrimination in access to education. This means a lack of regular, direct and systematic mechanisms monitoring the implementation of legislation and guaranteeing that legal provisions are strictly adhered to. This could be a significant issue in education systems where the individual schools are allowed a broad margin of appreciation in establishing their own values, policies and specific curricula, as this may not subject them to a sufficient level of scrutiny or supervision. 5.3.1.4 Other relevant concerns about the effectiveness of the legislation
In two countries (CY and PL) stakeholder interviews confirmed that there is an additional problem in relation to the effectiveness of the existing legislation: an institutional (rather than legal) deficit exists as there is no independent public body or clearly identified routes to submit complaints in the area of access to education, if there were any incidents of discrimination in this area.
5.3.2 Effectiveness of non-legislative measures
In a number of countries, none or very few non-legislative measures addressing specifically and directly the issue of sex discrimination in access to education have been identified (AT, CY, ES, FI, FR, IE, MT, PL, PT, RO and UK).
During the in-country research, stakeholders interviewed were further asked to give their views on the strengths and weaknesses of the non-legislative measures. They discussed whether they considered the current national non-legislative measures effective in discouraging sex discrimination in access to education.
On the basis of the responses received, it could be concluded that most interviewees consider the current non-legislative framework to be effective. However, a significant proportion interviewed considered that non-legislative measures are ineffective.
The main factors why non-legislative measures could be considered as effective are as follows:
▪
Their effectiveness is demonstrated by the lack of complaints in this area.▪
There is evidence in some countries that non-legislative measures to address sexdiscrimination are achieving their aims. An example is the Educational Programme for the children of Muslim Minority in Thrace, initially started in 1997. Statistical data confirm that the number of female students in secondary schools has substantially increased since the programme was introduced.
▪
The measures have been successful in changing gender stereotypes, addressing gender stereotypical educational choices and increasing gender awareness in the education system.80
▪
The measures help to focus attention, identify and give visibility to this type of discrimination in the school system, hence act as a deterrent.The main reasons why the current non-legislative measures require further improvement identified during the course of the study can be summarised as follows:
▪
Sufficient and robust monitoring and evaluation data are not available to demonstrate whether such measures are effective or not.▪
The results of measures or projects implemented are often forgotten and not widelydisseminated. They remain „experimental‟ and do not become part of established practices. Once a project is complete, lessons learned are not effectively communicated with the wider public and the programme outcomes are not used to design future policies in this field. Overall, there is a lack of easily available information about the results of pilot measures.
▪
The development of gender-sensitive instruction is also all too often dependent on the personal interest and commitment of teachers and school management.▪
Non-legislative measures need to be better institutionalised and „mainstreamed‟ to have a lasting rather than a cursory effect. For example, gender awareness in teacher training needs to be made mandatory, and not an optional element. Often, activities undertaken by NGOs are financed on a project basis, which makes a consistent implementation achallenge. Short-term projects are unlikely to be able to influence deeply engrained gender stereotypes.
▪
Non-legislative initiatives are typically trying to address entrenched issues such as gender subject segregation or improve the behaviour of pupils, which require long periods for the full impacts to become clear. Attitudes, mentalities, stereotypes and individual behaviour need to be changed but this is notoriously difficult to be achieved. Therefore, programmes should be implemented more over a longer term period.▪
Moreover, the measures taken are also fairly small in their scope perhaps reflecting the fact that issues relating to sex discrimination in access to education are not seen as a priority by the government.5.4
Summary of findings
This chapter described the findings of the research in relation to the effectiveness of existing legislative and non-legislative measures against sex discrimination in access to compulsory