A new report by the independent Policy Studies Institute shows that the allocation of training is itself exacerbating gender inequality in the workplace and that women’s skills are not being fully appreciated or utilised by employers.

Half Our Future: women, skill development and training, edited by Hilary Metcalf, asks why women still occupy lower-level jobs despite their much greater participation in the labour market.

Women now represent 48 per cent of employees in Britain and will soon form the majority of the workforce, and yet they earn less than men, are less likely to be managers than men and are concentrated in a small number of occupations - mostly secretarial and clerical, personal and caring services and sales.

Among the key findings:

• women are less likely than men to get a degree or to get vocational qualifications. Women in professional jobs are 20 per cent less likely to have a professional qualification than men with identical personal and employment characteristics - and most hold qualifications in a narrow range of occupations, such as nursing and teaching.

• women are more likely to acquire the skills necessary to do their job from experience rather than via formal qualifications. However, these skills often go unrecognized - and unused - by employers.

• the kind of training women receive is less likely to help them progress in the labour market and does nothing to address gender inequality in the workplace. Women’s training is more often at an induction level, associated with starting a new job.

• part timers are much less likely to get training, however. As nearly half (45 per cent) of women work part-time and many more will do so at some point in their careers, this leaves them at a considerable disadvantage compared to men. The authors found no evidence of direct gender discrimination in the allocation of training by employers. However, evidence did suggest discrimination against black women.

• family commitments reduce the likelihood of women training - but it was not just childcare responsibilities that reduced participation in training: women were also diverted from training by having a husband or partner. The effect was less severe if the training was supported by an employer and the authors conclude that more employer support for women to train and greater sharing of housework are necessary for women to develop their skills and play a full role in the workforce.

• women are more likely to fund their own training: this shows a very high commitment to employment, particularly given their worse position in the labour market. However, women need to gain confidence in the skills they do have. The authors found that women, especially the unqualified, are more likely than men to under-rate their skills.

• despite all this, women are more likely to be satisfied in their job and men were more satisfied when they worked with women.

‘Despite women’s high presence in the workforce, the existing patterns of training and skill development exacerbate gender inequality rather than remedy it’ said Hilary Metcalf. ‘This is particularly true for women with family responsibilities, women working part-time and the least skilled women. All of this is compounded by the lesser appreciation by employers of skills most often held by women and the lesser accreditation of skills for women.’

The authors call for policies which ensure the full participation of part-time workers in training and give them full access to opportunities for promotion.

The series of seminars on which this report was based was sponsored by the Department for Education and Employment.

Contact:	Neil Churchill on 	0171 468 2236 (direct) or
					0171 468 0468 (switchboard)

1. Half Our Future is available from Grantham Books on 01476 541080, priced £14.95.

2. The report contains papers from a number of leading academics and researchers. Individual chapters focus on education and training (Alan Felstead); training for employees (Hilary Metcalf); women, employment and skills (John Bynner, Leslie Morphy and Samantha Parsons); a case study in manufacturing (Rebecca Lawthom) and European training policy (Teresa Rees)

3. PSI is a registered educational charity (no 313819) and has no association with any political party, pressure group or commercial interest.