ffs

Yawn. I've read hundreds of articles like this, pretty much word for word. The same stupid assumptions e.g. boys are always better at exams/girls at coursework and inaccuracies e.g. around exams, which actually account for a higher proportion of the total mark for many subjects. The same sneers about "male virtues" e.g. reliability ... hmm??? It's a load of nonsense.

How come girls outperforming boys in education has been paraphrased as

"boys let down by female-favouring education system"

instead of

"girls' career prospects scuppered by male-favouring working practices"

?

If girls outperform boys but fail to achieve employment parity, then the second statement is as much true as the first, yet all the studies are concentrating on how boys are being let down and virtually ignore the second.

Yet another example of how our patriarchal society is more concerned about preventing any loss of male privilege before it is interested in advancing female rights.

And I say this as the mother of a son whose own education I care about passionately.

I don't think that boys achieve less well when taught by women, echt. In my own experience, the boys did just as well in the years where they had women teachers at primary as they did when taught by men. But I would argue that, at primary level at least, men have a different teaching style, and it benefits both boys and girls to experience different teaching styles.

There is not the slightest shred of evidence that boys achieve less well when taught by women.

Girls have always done better than boys pre A level, that's why mixed grammars had to skew the results to let "enough" boys in, back in the 11+ days; long before the so-called feminised curriculum. The so-called feminised curriculum is still predominantly exam-based, so why aren't the boys trouncing the girls?

All measure to increase the attainment of boys in secondary has also benefited the girls. So the gap remains.

Oh I wish I had never clicked on this as I'm now all wound up and cross and I need to go to sleep.

How could any sensible person look at this one thing and think that it means males are in trouble!??

And if it is the case that the education system has been deliberately skewed so that girls can acheive more than boys who the hell is supposed to be responsible...!?? All the people in power in this country are men... so what's the motive? Utter bollocks.

So what if it is true... so we're allowed to have a little extra money in our 20s so that we won't mind so much when we hit the glass ceiling at 30.

Not sure how "the desire to provide for and protect their families" and "the ability not to be too emotional" relate that much to learning maths or French when you are 7.

That tired old cliche about boys needing to run around constantly confuses me too. My dad went to school in the 50s, and spent much of the school day sitting at a desk in silence while the teacher spoke. Boys still apparently did well - there was no mythical time when boys took their lessons whilst running laps of the classroom and hitting each other.

^^ Fake ETA - in summing up the daily mail article

So basically, too much exposure to the wimminz, saps away a blokes manliness and turns him in to a stupid, useless waste of space. AmIright?

As someone with nearly 2 decades' experience I would just like to give my considered professional opinion.

It's all bollocks.

We just don't actually know enough about how the human brain works to have 'an answer' about the best way to teach anyone. All we do is try our best & keep going.

personally, I have a dd who is quite significantly 'male brained' and adhd. She is excelling at school. Is that cos she's a girl, or cos she's bright, or cos of her teachers, parents?

Who knows.

And let's face it, even exam results, degrees etc are only indicative of future success, not a direct cause.

"The prevailing dogma in early education now demands that both lessons and sport are devoutly non-competitive. It requires children to sit still around tables in which they work together as groups, rather than alone at desks. It is, in other words, perfectly suited to sociable little girls and anathema to boisterous, competitive little boys."
What does this fucking idiot know? About ANYTHING?

The whole article is a disgrace! Couldn't read to the end - particularly as I reached the laughably staged picture of the "disaffected" young boys drinking Bacardi Breezers on the street corners...

Total Crap.

But a coincidence alone is NOT sufficient evidence UPON which

I wish I'd never mentioned the PhD now.....

Corrections
boys' decline
But a coincidence alone is NOT sufficent evidence

Sorry

I'm with PrideofChanour on this one. I would also point out that the abolition of rote learning and one off exams -what I believe is a description of O-levels, although rote learning went out of fashion in the 60s- has coincided with a sea change in cultural thinking and expectations as to what girls can and can't do at school. I think that girls are actually allowed to such much of their true potential in ways that in the 60s and 70s they were not permitted to do.
Just an example (which I know is anecdotal and not proper proof) is the comparison between my mother (born 1948) and me ( born 1975). She excelled at school and passed the 11+ with flying colours. My grandad refused to let her go to grammar school until one of her teachers went to see him to plead on my mother's behalf (she was devastated). She sailed through high school and was directed by her teachers to apply to universities. This time my grandad put his foot down and refused. My mother's pleadings led to her being allowed to go to teacher training college near our town and she became a primary school teacher. Mum never received any support nor encouragement to study, while I on the other hand benefited from all the support she could give me. I went to university, did a PhD etc. It was all very easy for me.
I am waffling but I do think that girls are only now showing what they are truly capable of. Boys on the other hand seem to be suffering and while I agree it needs to be looked at, I think that more research need to be done. There is certainly what looks like a coincidence between the change in teaching practices and boys decline, but a coincidence alone is sufficent evidence on which to come to any conclusions.

I would guess that if more boys sat down, shut up and listened, they might do better at school, but worse as an adult, given that being domineering and cloth-eared seem to be rewarded in adult males. It's no surprise that the reverse is true - some girls listen and apply themselves and do well, but then don't get rewarded for that in the adult world.

"facts, rote-learning, traditional subjects and one-off exams,"
So why is this what boys like? This is me,and why I did ok at school - I was good at facts,rote learning and one off exams,in the 60's and 70's when that was what my (girls') school was like.Definitely a girl though...
I think it is dangerous to take this sort of gender stereotype and use it as a basis for planning an education system.

The division of abilities and mental characteristics into male and female is problematic,I think.The author lists these as underrated male virtues -"reliability, stamina, physical strength, the desire to provide for and protect their families, and sometimes, as unfashionable as it might be, the ability not to be too emotional". Those things should be valued in women as well as men surely? In the same way that all children should be encouraged to be emotionally mature,sensitive, better communicators, better team-workers,
those are important skills to have.

I am not reading the article.

But seeing as there is no reason to believe that one gender is better suited to doing exams than the other, we should look into why there is a large gap and try to ensure that everyone gets the education they deserve.

If it's true that boys tend to learn differently to girls (which I am not convinced of) then there will also be a lot of girls who learn in the "boyish" way (overlapping groups, not discrete), so the answer would be not to educate separately but to tailor education to each individual's preferred learning style.

Of course anyone who is under performing - boy or girl - should have the reasons looked into to see if the system is undermining them.

However, there's a lot of bollox talked about conscientious course-work orientated girls and active, competitive boys.

For example, I am probably older than most posters on this board. I took the 11+ in the 1950s and was brought up under the system that (allegedly) favoured boys i.e. competitive sport, minimal course work, a higher proportion of male teachers, sudden death exams etc. Yet still the girls were out performing the boys to the degree that as a girl you had to achieve higher marks to pass the 11+ than boys because the education authorities insisted the intake to grammar schools was balanced so that it was about 50/50 male/female. Had the pass mark being the same there would have been a higher proportion of girls admitted than boys.

Googling will probably confirm what I say is accurate but am on the run at the mo and don't have time......

I happen to think that it IS unfair if any one group underperforms, LRD. Or is it OK if it is evil hateful boys who are underperforming?

Ah, yes, how terribly unfair that these girls should out-perform boys, then go on to be paid less for the same jobs later on.

Wait, was that not the point?

I think decisions need to be made at the highest level about which underperforming cohort should be focused on. This will vary by area, of course.

It's a lot easier for a newspaper to focus on the educational performance of a large group, such as 'boys', than to analyse the cohorts in terms of race, gender, economic factors etc.

The author doesn't need to worry because the young women will all get screwed over if they want to have a family anyway.

I think the headline is bollox! In my experience women earn less than men. My DH is 6 years younger than me, has had less formal education and has not been in the workplace as long as me yet he earns more than I do.

I think we are in agreement SDTG....

I belive there is real issue for boys in the current school system and that this needs to be addressed. And for society as whole it is not good for either gender to dominate a profession - be that doctors, teachers or high court judges!

Gomez - as I said earlier, in an ideal world, each child should get an education that enables them to fulfill their potential, and achieve the best they are capable of, regardless of gender, race, anything. I am certainly not suggesting that, in order for things to be 'fair', any group outperforming any other group should be dragged down to the lower standard. And if the article suggests that, then the author is a numpty.