Boys v Girls attainment(12 Posts)
I have been comparing two local Secondary schools. They both have the same prior attainment so, all else being equal should produce the same final attainment - making it easier to compare.
School A has better results than school B, and then I came across one of the reasons deep in the Gov data.
The GCSE Capped Average Point Score (APS) is quite different for boys at school B.
The attached graph shows that on average girls perform better than boys, but school B boys are significantly worse than school A and similar other schools (those with similar prior attainment).
For context, a 25 point difference is about one finer grade difference per subject, e.g. B compared to B-. School B boys have about a two finer grade difference compared to school A boys.
The school B girls value the same as similar schools.
Anyone have any ideas why the boys result should be so low; have you seen it in other schools. For info, school A is Ofsted 1, school B is Ofsted 3.
Was school A at some point the grammar or single sex boys school? Do they segregate sexes for certain lessons? There has been quite a lot of research about teaching English especially separately so that they read in effect different texts that interest the different sexes.
There could be all sorts of reasons, poor teaching in subjects that attract more boys than girls is one that comes to mind and if school B has been rated 3 that makes it all the more plausible. I have heard of some school years implode due to a tragedy (usually very upsetting and unsettling) and it is the close friends (often but not always mostly the same sex) who suffer grades as a result. A look at past years to see if it was a blip rather than a trend can possibly help with that scenario. Is school B in a grammar area or near a boys grammar but not a girls grammar? I take it the OFSTED report for school B doesn't shed any light on the phenomena which is why you are asking MN?
I thought I got focused when choosing DDs secondary school and I did have a spreadsheet butt didn't get as far as making my own graph. Maybe there is hope for me yet.
Boys are just lazy yet safe in the fact that they will always get paid more in the long run for doing the same job! And they won't get discriminated against when looking for a job as much as women do in my experience - the unwritten rule
Boys are just lazy yet safe in the fact that they will always get paid more in the long run for doing the same job!
What a load of sexist bullshit. There is an issue with men getting paid more for the same job as women but laziness absolutely doesn't come into it.
I teach. There are plenty of lazy boys. There are also plenty of lazy girls.
DD's school has exactly the same problem. No grammar nearby, and it's a longstanding issue. I suspect it's partly due to intake anyway - there's a very high number of pupils with ALNs, and it's the school of choice for anyone with a dyslexic dc (does that affect boys more?). Possibly also a class issue - working class white boys are low achievers nationally.
There are still plenty of high achieving boys - though if I'd had an average achiever boy, I would definitely have been a bit wary of the school.
I don't think it's an anti-achievement cultural thing within the school itself, DD's in year 9 now, and it doesn't seem a problem (certainly much less than at my girl's comp in the 80s).
How big are these schools? The bigger the school the more meaningful the data would be.
I am a governor at a school with a very challenging catchment. There are lots of interventions, revision sessions and so on. Girls are far more likely to turn up. I don't know if this is specific to our school or not.....
In my sample population of anyone I have ever known ever in my entire life then I would say that on balance boys are often but not always lazier than girls. Extrapolate that as you desire!
In my sample population of a working life including managing, recruiting etc then females were informally discriminated against by employers - or at least those making/advising on employment decisions. Extrapolate that as you desire!
Could it be perhaps that the offerings at GCSE/ equivalent are different so there are vocational courses that still count towards the scores?
Thanks for the replies.
To answer some of the questions posed.
School A has 600 pupils, B has 1000, so enough to make the data meaningful.
Neither school is in the catchment of a grammar/selective school.
Both are fairly rural schools.
2014 results/ratios are of the same order - so doesn't look like a blip/incident.
B's Ofsted report doesn't shed any light.
The GCSE and All Quals results/ratios are similar - so it's not down to GCSE offerings.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.