Dec 27

Essex girls, Essex women … new research on single-sex classes at university

Today’s edition of The Independent reports some very interesting small scale research at Essex University, where a group of students was split, randomly, into three teaching groups by gender – a male only group, a female only group, and a mixed gender group. At the end of the year, the marks of the female only group were 8% higher than the marks of the other two groups, which is statistically significant, and an interesting result. Of course, there may have been many factors at play here – it was a small scale study, the students do not appear to have been filtered for raw intelligence, so it is possible that one group (by chance) was more prone to higher marks anyway – but the remarks made by the participants indicated that they felt that their success was in no small part due to the single-gender grouping.

What is it about single-sex groupings that works so well for girls? The young women interviewed identified the collaborative nature of the relationships that emerged – they ‘bonded’ – as well as the fostering of a confidence to be competitive and to take risks. This, the article pointed out, was also identified in a similar study in schools in Essex and Suffolk, where girls who attended an all-girls’ school were found to be much more willing to take risks in the classroom than girls who attended a mixed school. Interestingly, the three female university students interviewed for the Independent article, now all back in mixed gender groups for their second year of their university course, all reported that they were much less likely to contribute to their mixed classes in the way in which they had contributed over the past year in their single-sex classes.

As a proponent of single-sex education, having taught all-boys, co-ed (in two schools), and now all-girls, it makes perfect sense to me that creating a single-sex environment gives girls a space to learn the confidence to be them, free of the gender stereotypes still bombarding girls and women that tell them how to be a woman (most of which do not involve stretching themselves, taking risks, being positively competitive etc). Personally, and from experience, I think single-sex works extremely well for boys, too – it lets boys be boys, just as it lets girls be girls, as a part of their learning experience. People worry sometimes that by teaching boys and girls separately we reduce their ability to be able to relate to each other; we should remember that lessons and classes make up only a small fraction of their formative years, and that there are plenty of opportunities for them to meet and learn to negotiate their relationships outside the classroom. If we are able to provide our young people with a space for them to learn genuinely just to be themselves, to understand what their gender means for them, and to learn to understand themselves, then we are giving them a great gift.

And this was what the students from Essex University discovered last year.

Dec 20

Curbing the sexualisation of children – new UK Government rules to start the New Year

News came in yesterday that Michael Gove has confirmed that changes to the National Curriculum in the UK will not now take effect until September 2014 rather than the planned September 2013, and this qualifies as a good thing in my book. We do of course have to change the national curriculum – it is so full of ‘stuff’ that it is hard to find any room for anything other than relentless cramming, and in seeking to be all things to all people it has fallen into the trap of becoming disjointed and unconnected – but without proper reflection, any changes will as likely as not fail to take effect properly, and the Government could very easily end up with egg on its face. Far better to pause, think intelligently, respond to the new evidence which is emerging, and work to create a framework for the curriculum which really does qualify as a world-class education.

The new evidence emerging is of course linked to the standards which other countries seem to be able to enable their young people to reach, notably in Maths and Science, but also in Languages. Many cultural elements are at play here, however, and it would be unwise for a national curriculum simply to transplant to the UK teaching models that work elsewhere – in the Far East for example, or even in Finland (until recently, flavour of the month). With this in mind, it would be worth the Department for Education and the National Curriculum Review Committee spending some of their newly acquired time on working out how to tackle the apathy and lack of aspiration which marks many young people (and their parents) in the country today; if we don’t find a way to do this, we may as well not bother with a framework, for it will have little or any effect on the final educational outcomes.

In addition, some of the freed up time could usefully be spent on working out how to measure young people’s attainment accurately without resorting to national tests at certain set intervals (and in this I include GCSEs). The enormous danger of such tests, seen time and again in practice, is that teachers will end up teaching to the test, and the educational experience of the student will narrow in focus, especially if he or she is struggling to reach the benchmark required. Why – other than for the obvious financial reasons – are we not devoting time and energy to working out how to assess on an individual basis, and follow this up with remedial or extension work as appropriate? Surely this makes sense?

A National Curriculum is a double-edged sword – a means on the one hand by which we can ensure fair access and equality of educational opportunity; a downward spiral on the other hand towards a restrictive and insubstantial educational experience on the other. Governments caught between the devil and deep blue sea in this respect are wise not simply to tweak what has gone before, but to stop and consider what we all really need from such a curriculum. We now have a little more time and space to do this.

Dec 19

Delaying curriculum change – the right thing to do … but only the start

School examinations have been plastered all over the front pages this week, in the wake of the Daily Telegraph expos’ of some of the comments made by examiners – and chief examiners – on courses for teachers of their subject. Course leaders have been filmed giving strong hints about the content of next summer’s papers, and instructing teachers in how to restrict the amount that they teach, in order to make it simpler for their pupils to pass the final exam. One examiner was filmed boasting about how easy the specifications (ie syllabus) were – hardly an endorsement for a world class exam system.

And this is the problem. I have gone on the record in the past with my belief that our national exams system has been discredited for a time. It has grown into an administrative nightmare, taking up vast swathes of time and energy in school in preparing for the exams, sitting the papers and following up the results. This past summer’s (unfortunately now familiar) experience of impossible questions and poor marking is simply compounded by this most recent insight into how teachers are being lined up to cheat the system. The art has become how to pass the exam, not how to learn a subject and deepen understanding.

The fact that exam boards are allowed to charge for these courses is iniquitous, and lays the way wide open for abuse – any sensible person could work this out. Exam boards also publish text books and charge considerable amounts for exams, re-sits and re-marks; it is therefore in their commercial interest to attract ‘customers’ and to grow and prolong the entire process. At the heart of their activity may be a noble sense of aiming to provide a ‘gold standard’ against which our young people can be measured in the wider world, but the reality has drifted far, far from this ideal. Its credibility could not be lower at present. In independent schools we have known this for a time and we work to circumvent the inequities of the system, but it is becoming harder and harder to do this, and more and more frustrating.

The people who suffer from this, of course, are our young people – the students in our schools. They are the ones who will be entering the workplace or the world of higher education with an education which has been restricted in order to help them to gain a qualification which employers and universities increasingly feel is not worth the paper it is written on. This is not their fault – it is our fault for not sorting it out. The time has come to overhaul the system entirely. Our teenagers are over tested, poorly supported by the system and criminally under-prepared as a result. At the very least let us set up a Royal Commission, work out what is failing with the system and start making a difference. We cannot begin soon enough.

Dec 14

A Hamleys revolution: letting children be children, regardless of gender

It was interesting to read in Tuesday’s Times newspaper that Hamleys, probably the most famous toy store in the country, had decided to change its long-held policy of separating out ‘girls’ toys’ from ‘boys’ toys’. Hamleys is synonymous with children’s toys and by association with much, much more: childhood, Christmas, innocence, fun … it is a veritable institution and revered worldwide; for them to take this non-gendered step is – not to put too fine a point on it – quite a revolution.

Hamleys said, of course, that this move had nothing to do with concerns about gender-stereotyping of toys, and the consequent effect on girls and boys and their perception of the world from a very early stage; they pointed to ‘customer flow’ as the main reason behind the change. In practice, though, everyone thinks that this has come about because of a concerted campaign by the blogger – and neuro-scientist – Laura Nelson. In requesting that Hamleys recategorise their toys by type of toy, not gender, she pointed out to them – and their Icelandic bank backers – that the girls’ floor had a preponderance of toys focused on ‘domestic, caring and beauty activities’, while toys on the boys’ floor were ‘geared to action and war, with little scope for creativity (arts and crafts)’. She pointed out too that ‘gender stereotypes in toys are highly influential and pervasive, and influence children’s and parents’ choices, aspirations and expectations. These different toys also promote the development of certain skills and encourage boys and girls to pursue activities that are consistent with the gender stereotypes we see in our society generally (women in passive, caring and homemaking roles; men in active, leading and aggressive roles)’.

She was making perfect sense. No-one disputes that girls and boys are different, and may be drawn to different toys and different activities, but it is debatable to what extent this is down to nature rather than nurture. By pointing children in certain gender-specific directions – literally, in the case of Hamleys – we risk reinforcing pre-existing understandings of their gendered interests, and we cannot escape the suspicion that these have been heavily influenced by our history of gender expectations. Moreover, there is something sinister about the ‘sea of pink’ described by Ms Nelson on the girls’ floor – what are we really telling our daughters about what they should like and do? Faced with such an overwhelming visual message, what else can we expect of them?

Any organisation which achieves the status of ‘institution’ has a responsibility to wider society. Hamleys should not just be making money, it should be at the forefront of the helping to make the world a better, fairer, more equitable place. It has done the right thing; perhaps now it can be yet bolder, and challenge still further, the messages girls and boys receive about ‘perfect’ bodies and appearance replicated in the male and female models scattered liberally amongst the toys they will still find on the shelves of the ‘Finest Toy Shop in the World’ …

Dec 11

Cowards, bullies and ‘freedom of speech’ online … the X Factor and its moral responsibility to right its wrongs

The X Factor is over and it will be left for the media and commentators to pick through the debris. As part of this process, we must not overlook the opportunity to take a long, hard look at the moral responsibility shows like the X Factor have in what they do, and especially in the kind of behaviour they encourage in others. A prime example of this is in their spin-off activities, including online gossip and comment. At the beginning of last Saturday’s X Factor, a simple line came up on the screen – #XFactor. This was a clear invitation to viewers to follow comments being made by other viewers on Twitter, and out of curiosity, I did – and I found the experience (which I kept a short-lived one) depressing and, in parts, shocking. These were my observations:

  1. The number of comments was overwhelming – around 50 a second at times, it felt. While the intention of the promotion of the Twitter feed was – I imagine – to add a further interactive dimension to the show, the consequence was that you could easily end up missing the show while you drowned in tweets. A more self-defeating activity I cannot imagine.
  2. The vast majority of the tweets were inane, sent by strangers to be viewed by strangers. While I applaud the concept of society connecting more closely, there is little point in this happening through inanity. Surely we should be seeking to combine our forces more positively.
  3. A number of tweets were pithy, contributed to the discussion about the merits of the singers and were interesting. They did of course also, however, perpetuate the fundamental issue I have with the concept of the X Factor, namely that it encourages a mindset in society that open criticism of others is ok (it isn’t), and it sets young people up for painful personal criticism without giving them the psychological support and grounding to help them cope with this.
  4. Some tweets were cruel, pointedly rude about individuals and some were shockingly sexist and racist. They were bullying and they were cowardly, hiding behind the anonymity that the internet provides. All this I found totally unacceptable. We should not be accepting of this kind of behaviour; moreover, we have clearly failed in our society both in educating people to know how to write and behave online (so that they can self-regulate – always the first port of call in a free society), and in providing a regulatory framework that prevents this kind of harmful behaviour, or provides for consequences (knowledge of which again helps people to self-regulate).

I would like to think that the promotion of the Twitter feed by the X Factor team was done from worthy motives, to ‘enhance the viewer experience’ … although I do question the morality of the show in its entirety, and whether therefore it is even morally right to consider enhancing the viewing experience. I harbour a suspicion that – especially as it was something that could in no way be controlled by the production team – it was planned to promote controversy and provoke reaction. They will have known the type of comments that had been made on previous weeks; they knew what they were doing. In fact, what they have done is to become complicit in cruelty, harm, sexism and racism.

The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) recognises the right to freedom of expression as a human right, and freedom of speech or expression is also recognised in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Article 19 of this International Covenant states that “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”.

Article 19 goes on to say, however, that the exercise of these rights carries “special duties and responsibilities” and may “therefore be subject to certain restrictions” when necessary “[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others” or “[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals”. We seem to have lost sight of this almost entirely in our dealings with online media; we have abdicated our responsibility, and we need to do something about it. Bottom-up education of children (and adults) on the responsibilities that come with rights must be combined with top-down clear legal frameworks that provide for appropriate admonition when people are harmful to other people. We have been left behind by this technology and we have to get on top of it. Freedom of opinion is good; freedom to harm others verbally is downright wrong, and we have to grapple with the fine line that can exist between the two.

We have to do something about so-called ‘freedom of speech’ which has the potential to vilify and harm people. This is not worthy of human beings in a civilised world; it is not right, and we should be prepared to do something about it. It is no excuse to hide behind the fact that the technology is out there, and it will be used regardless of regulation; we invented the technology – now we need to develop the wisdom to ensure that it is used in a way that does not harm.

My rule of thumb – if what I write is something I would think was rude or harmful if I said it face-to-face, then I will not write it. Do I always get it right? Of course not – but I try, and I learn, and I apologise if I have got it wrong. I know that this is what we are teaching in school. At the moment, though, it seems, there is no ‘rule of thumb’ guidance for the vast majority of the populace. We have to put this right – and shows like the X Factor need to face up to their responsibility.

Dec 11

X Factor, bullying, and some reflections for young people

The GSA conference in Bristol last week proved to be a very stimulating few days, and – as is common on these occasions – the whole event kicked off with a 30 minute speech from the President, so I had prepared my 4000 words and I delivered them on Monday to everyone. Most of the girls at school would recognise most of the themes I touched on – the importance of girls’ education (not just in the UK but throughout the world – I talked about Bangladesh, for instance), as well as how the exam system in this country is ripe for change. I talked about how politicians get too involved in education, and that educational policy should no longer focus on short-term thinking, a quick-fix solution aimed at impressing the electorate before the next election. I spoke positively about partnerships between state and independent schools, although I was rather more reticent about the importance that the government is attaching to independent schools taking over state schools, or academies. And I spoke out about parenting, values and how reality shows like the X Factor glamorised bullying and arrogance, and how young people were growing up in a moral abyss (or words to that effect). Unsurprisingly, as I was making a strong point – these were the aspects of the speech which were picked up and went viral and global.

What I said in that part of my speech was this:
‘It is not just the banal and mind-numbing nature of many of these copycat shows which I feel is so undesirable, or the easy celebrity reality TV stars seem to have achieved which can be very attractive to teenagers and children seeking a direction – but the amorality of such shows. In the X Factor, contestants are encouraged to be at each other’s throats, seemingly more so this year than ever – perhaps signalling this particular brand is well and truly in decline. Qualities such as bullying and arrogance are glamorised and become synonyms for ambition and drive. Young people look up to these so-called stars who have themselves been catapulted into a spotlight which can be far too much for them. This is a show which exploits not only its contestants but its audience too. The lines are blurred between the qualities we should be encouraging our young people to value and the qualities they feel are valuable.’

The process of watching news media at work is a very, very interesting one. Google ‘Dr Helen Wright X Factor’ and you will be able to track what happened. Once the stories had appeared in the Daily Mail, they were then picked up and repackaged into a press release by the Press Association, and it started then appearing in local newspapers and on websites across the UK. It then popped up in the Huffington Post, and then started to spread further as organisations and people starting reposting – it was picked up by Sky News, Fox News in the US, the Gulf Times in Doha and the Australian Daily Telegraph, who made the connection with Ascham School in Sydney; it was in the India Times, Ghana Nation and translated into a number of languages. Then radio programme producers started ringing, and I did live radio interviews, including BBC Radio London, BBC Radio Five Live, BBC Radio Belfast and BBC Radio 4 – the Call You and Yours programme – amongst others. We also went to the ITV studios in Bristol to do a pre-record for that evening’s ITV West tonight.

The school office started to get busy with phone calls, letters and emails, the vast majority of which were incredibly supportive. Online forums started discussing the comments, as did other columnists. You know you have made an impact when the X Factor have to issue a statement saying that they do not in fact tolerate bullying, but work in a team ethos.

And all this interest that should tell us something. When there is interest in – and a lot of agreement on – a moral position that is being taken, it usually indicates that there is something in it that is really worrying people, and we should be very aware of this. There is nothing essentially wrong with the X Factor if it really is only a trivial light entertainment show about which people don’t think twice, and which has no impact on their lives. But it is set up to be much more than that – it is positioned as a life-changing show for the individuals taking part, and it is made incredibly attractive to watch – lights, music, drama. The producers want us to be attracted to it and stick with it, watch it avidly – and, of course, feed their advertising revenues (the more people who watch, the more advertisers in the breaks will pay for their adverts).

And shouldn’t we think carefully about what we are actually being shown on the screen? Especially to impressionable young minds, these ‘stars’, be they judges or contestants, are inevitably set up as role models, and yet we see adults on our screens shouting at one another, being cruel to one another and to contestants, ritual humiliation (from judges and audience), a sense that you only get on in the world by trampling on others, and an underlying understanding that fame, fortune and celebrity are desirable above all else. I’m not sure that I feel at all comfortable with that, even though I like the concept of people being encouraged to follow their dreams. If the ‘hard work’ aspect of ‘fame’ is underplayed, this is a sign of a fundamentally flawed understanding of how the world works, and the complete opposite of the messages we should be communicating to our young people.

The girls in my school are lucky – they have strong value frameworks around them in their families and their school which help them to understand the world and put it into perspective. They probably don’t even think very much about these frameworks of values, but so many people – young people their age – don’t have those commonsense frameworks. The girls I help educate can see the X Factor for what it is, but for vast numbers of people, this and similar shows are forming a moral – or rather, amoral or even immoral – backdrop to their lives. We need to think about our responsibility as a society to all members of our society. How can we help them put it into context? By changing their perspectives or by changing the shows? Or, ideally, both?

Remembering to look behind the allure of the glamour of the X Factor or other similar ‘reality’ shows is important – we must never, ever take them too seriously. And yet we must also not excuse them either simply on the grounds that they are light entertainment – we must never ever accept that poor or harmful behaviour to others is ok – it isn’t.

We have to recognise that we live in a society and not in isolation – it isn’t acceptable just to say that people are ‘expressing themselves’ if they are also being harmful to others. If they lived by themselves on a desert island and genuinely had no interaction with anyone, then they could potentially be as horrible as they wanted (although I can’t imagine that they would be happy); the moment we are with other people, however, we have a responsibility to treat themselves, as well as ourselves, with respect.

We all have a responsibility to make a positive difference in society. Let us begin by challenging what we watch on a Saturday night.

Dec 09

Partnership in action: schools working together across the sectors

I had the real pleasure on Tuesday of this week to give a speech and present the prizes at the Annual Awards Evening of one of our local state schools, Abbeyfield School in Chippenham – a Business and Enterprise Specialist College for 11-18 year olds. Its motto is ‘Aspiration, Attitude, Achievement’, and this resonates so well with our approach to education at St Mary’s Calne that we have been developing our relationship together over the past few years – one of the several relationships we have with other schools and universities.

A natural area of overlap between our two schools is that of able, gifted and talented pupils. St Mary’s Calne has a national reputation for academic excellence and university preparation, with 20% of our Year 13 students last year going on to Oxford or Cambridge Universities, and it has been a real pleasure to welcome Abbeyfield students to the Oxbridge preparation classes which we run at St Mary’s Calne, and to benefit from their involvement and their perspective. This programme of collaborative action has been extended, and we are developing activities which challenge and stretch able, gifted and talented students across the two schools, including seminars and subject-specific workshops, as well as lectures and Challenge Days.

The real key to successful partnership is that it is mutually beneficial, and that both partners enter into it on an equal footing. In this way, the difference that can exist between the abilities of the two partners to be able to be generous with their funds becomes less of a focus, and there is instead a real emphasis on joint achievement. Both are bringing something to the table; both are gaining from the experience. Independent schools are not islands – no school is an island; we are in the business of preparing young people to live and work in a diverse society, and our moral responsibility for this extends beyond the pupils in our school, although our prime concern must always, of course, be the young people at the heart of our own school. Mutually beneficial relationships are the way forward, and they do not always require considerable structural change which locks independent schools into the state sector.

As I said in my speech on Tuesday night, I believe that schools are essentially about people and about people in society. We know our society can be unequal, and our schools should be places where we teach the values of hard work, kindness, tolerance and understanding which we need if we are to improve our world. They should be places where we teach and value inquisitiveness, determination and commitment to make the world a better place. The students at Abbeyfield receiving their awards had all shown that they can work and achieve, and I applaud them for it. They – and the young people in my school – are all unique individuals with a distinctive future story that has yet to be written. It is up to us to make sure that they can all make the differences in the world that are still needed.

Dec 06

The dangers of pole-dancing …

I am perplexed by the apparent craze for pole-dancing. It may not in fact be a craze, but we certainly seem to be hearing more about it these days. Marketed as ‘pole fitness’, its proponents are quick to stress the physical benefits of the classes, as well as the fact that they are ‘fun’. Quite apart from the fact that hanging upside down clinging on to a metal pole doesn’t particularly strike me as ‘fun’ (although I do recognise that this is probably a personal perspective), I find it hard to separate in my mind the notion of ‘fitness’ from the notion of degrading sexual entertainment, performed by women for men, in strip clubs.

I doubt that I am alone – I would find it hard to imagine that any practiser of ‘pole fitness’ is not aware of its sexual connotations, so the question is – can this activity be reclaimed and/restored to ‘innocence’, or at least to a state where it is entirely unconnected with its more demeaning form? Even if it can, eventually – and the ‘pole fitness’ enthusiasts will in due course take their positions as great liberators of women – then surely this is an adult struggle, and not one for our children?

Why, then, are we introducing our children – girls, of course – to this activity, at an ever earlier age? Last week it was reported in The Sun that seven-year-old girls were taking pole-dancing classes … and pictures of them were being posted on Facebook by their parents. If their parents really do not see the psychological and practical dangers in introducing their seven-year olds to a heavily sexualised adult activity, then I think we have failed somewhere along the line in our society to pass on the wisdom of ages – of what it means to be a child, and of what it means to be able to grow up rather than miss out on the process altogether.

Still, this realisation just makes it all the more important that we do stand up and that we are counted when we see our children exposed to age-inappropriate messages about sex and sexuality. Our children deserve a childhood.

Dec 06

Building a third dimension to your life: women take note!

Last week I had the real pleasure of hearing a talk by Dr Heather McGregor, aka Mrs Moneypenny of the Financial Times. Frank, forthright and funny, she was imparting the benefit of her wisdom, gained over many years placing men and women in top jobs, to an audience of Sixth Formers at Wellington College, but what she had to say was relevant to women at all stages of their careers – and, indeed, lives.

One particular point she made struck home. She was quite clear: in life, you need to do much more than just work and run a home – you need to have a third dimension. This could perhaps be a particular hobby or passion, or it could be doing something for others in a structured and organised way, helping to make a difference in their lives. As part of the same conference she was interviewing Helena Morrissey, the highly successful CEO of Newton Investment Management, and founder of the Thirty Per Cent Club, which aims to ensure that boardrooms have at least 30% representation by women by 2015, and it was quite obvious that this ‘third dimension’ to Ms Morrissey’s life was both personally enriching and enhanced the other two main centres of her life. As a mother she was as a result more focused on making sure that her children had no psychological barriers that would stop them achieving because of their gender; and as a CEO she was committed to more effective board management (remember, of course, that studies have shown that greater diversity – including gender diversity – on boards leads to greater effectiveness). Above all, she is seeking to make a difference in the world, and this translates into all the areas of her life in a unifying and really quite powerful fashion.

Sometimes – particularly in the early stages of their careers – women feel they have no time for a ‘third dimension’, but when they work out how to manage it all, and rise above the day-to-day routine that can limit creative work and life patterns, then finding a way to pursue their passion and do something that really, really matters, can be truly liberating and empowering. It completes the picture and closes the circle; more than this, it reaches out to others and fulfils the responsibility that we all have to play a bigger part in our community and world. This is what society is all about – together we are stronger, and each of us must take it upon ourselves to stretch out beyond the bounds of our day-to-day lives.

Mrs Moneypenny was right – and this is not just good careers advice; it is good life advice. Her book – Careers Advice for Ambitious Women – is out in January. I think you will find it excellent.

Dec 03

Preparing girls to ‘have it all’ in life

On Wednesday I addressed an audience of Sixth Form girls at Wellington College in Berkshire, at a conference designed to explore whether it is possible for girls and women to ‘have it all’ in their lives. My approach was straightforward – the answer is, quite simply, ‘yes’ – they just need to work out what ‘having it all’ actually means! Step 1 in any process of planning to make the most of one’s life must start with a deep exploration and understanding of the landscape.

You barely need to glance at some of our tabloid newspapers or magazines to see that girls and women ‘having it all’ is a hot topic. Hardly an edition of the Daily Mail lands on doorsteps without it containing an article – maybe more than one – on working women and how they manage it – or don’t. The novel by Allison Pearson, ‘I don’t know how she does it’, was only just published in 2002, and of course the film starring Sarah Jessica Parker has not long been released. This ‘having it all’ or not is a big source of debate and controversy.

So why is it so controversial? Well, we live in an interesting period of our social history – a period of transition as far as gender issues are concerned, but one that often masks itself as a period of post-transition. Laws are one thing; people’s perceptions of the world, influenced by their families and friends around them, are quite another. The world of my grandmother’s youth, before women even had the vote, is a real lifetime away, but is in fact inextricably bound with the present through the people we know and who have influenced us in our lives. My grandmother’s understanding of the world was shaped by her early 20th century life, and this understanding has lived on to some extent in my mother, and in me. This pattern is replicated in almost every family in Britain.

The danger comes, of course, when this understanding is left unchallenged, or just accepted as truth, fact or normality. If we are honest, and look with a critical eye at the world around us, we can see these underlying understandings of women’s place in the world in many facets of our world, as often as not fed by the media: the sense lurking in the background that a women’s place is rightfully in the home, that men are the breadwinners, that in order to succeed in the world of work, you need to be able to employ masculine traits. All nonsense, of course, but we recognise them, and they are pervasive.

Where is the right path in all of this? What should women be doing? The point, of course, about this being a period of social transition is that people don’t know the answer to this yet … but the consequence of this, therefore, is that it is all up for grabs. Never before has the landscape been so open to women carving out their own pathways – the rhetoric is there, the everyday acceptance of equality is there, embedded in daily communication, and some quite interventionist legislation hovers threateningly in the background – talk of quotas in parliamentary parties, and an obligation on boards of FTSE 100 companies to bring up the proportion of their female directors to 25% at least by 2015.

In truth, no-one wants quotas or targets that are met by artificially promoting women just because they are women – successful companies only want the best, and no-one wants to feel as though they are being given a position not on merit, but because of their gender. But what is significant is that the threats are there in the first place, driven by government and a ruling social class which determines the direction of our thoughts. It is the ‘done thing’ not only to think that equality is a good thing, but also to be seen to be doing something about it.

This is fertile ground for girls to be able to achieve whatever they might want to achieve. And in this climate, we are meanwhile emboldening girls in our schools to feel that there is nothing that they cannot do. But they do have to be bold, they do have to be brave, and they do have to know themselves and what they want, and this is exactly what I was saying on Wednesday.