Is school really designed to benefit girls? Doesn't that model of education date to before the emancipation of women?

[moonwatch]

I see all the time online that schools favour girls, that the way teaching is typically done i.e. where pupils sit at a desk for longish periods and face the teacher to be taught is designed for girls or to favour girls and that if education was designed for boys there would be more play, active learning and running about.

However that exact model of schooling dates back to a time when most girls were not educated unless wealthy and that would usually be done at home with private tutors. So that system of education where you sit down for hours to learn was quite literally designed for boys.

In addition from what I have read even when play based or active learning is used it seems that both boys and girls will benefit equally although boys are more likely to see improved behaviour and need less support to learn girls still retain their lead in attainment over boys. I do concede that less behavioural issues is a huge win for the boys though.

Some of these people say we should have single sex schools so that boys can be educated by men in a male focused way but again girls typically do even better academically at single sex schools although there appears to be a higher risk of eating disorders. From what I see about boys some research seems to show it can help improve academic attainment but that it also leads to increased risks of depression in boys and that men educated at single sex schools are even more likely to be divorced in later life. Overall from what I read it seems that girls see a net benefit from education in a single sex school where as boys benefit more from being educated in mixed schools.

I think a lot of these comments online come from the US and I don't know about their education system but I have heard the above said here as well. I also think some of this comes from men's rights activists who think that there is a great conspiracy against men and boys and that the system is rigged against them. I just can't see evidence of that. I do know that boys are facing difficulties in many ways and I am not against society or schools doing what it can to support them in attaining better outcomes I do just get frustrated by these false arguments which seem to want to demonise women for things they haven't done.

As far as I can see from what teachers themselves say is that the biggest factor in a child doing well at school is in how the parents view education, do they support and encourage the child, do the work with the teacher and school or against them? Is it perhaps that for some people coming up with a conspiracy is easier than actually taking responsibility and putting in work to support your own child?

Men and boys want advantages for themselves. Women and girls don't have to facilitate that. Single sex school support girls in becoming strong, independent women. Mixed sex schools teach girls they only exist for the benefit of boys.

Former teacher, mixed. Sent own dd to a single-sex school.

The days when (rich) girls were taught at home boys would also have had tutors at home until they went off to Prep school or Public school (so at age 9 or 13).
By 9 - most boys can sit still.

@StopStartStop I don't disagree but why do (some) men make out that women are rigging the system to suit girls and women and that boys would be better off taught differently from girls by men in their own boys schools or that school could some how be changed to benefit boys when even more active schooling sees girls retain their educational advantage?

I suppose to be honest you see this argument across the board from men's rights i.e. that women are getting to above themselves to the point where men are now disadvantaged in education, career and relationships but the end game always seems to be women need to be kept down so men can do better in comparison. Why can't everyone just do well together?

Non rich boys without a tutor were still educated in class rooms well before girls were educated. The point remains that this method of education what not designed to advantage girls as so many say it was. Even when things like slow education or play based learning are used girls still do better than boys.

Having had experience of all girls' schools and mixed schools, I think mixed comprehensives these days have strict discipline rules mostly because of badly behaved boys. Not that girls are all angels but I do think their classes get dominated by loud and forthright boys even if they are well-behaved. I think most pupils who do well in secondary schools do so in spite of school not because of it.

As far as I can see from what teachers themselves say is that the biggest factor in a child doing well at school is in how the parents view education, do they support and encourage the child, do the work with the teacher and school or against them?

We have always done that as parents for both our daughters but it became apparent that DD2's secondary school could not and would not ever meet her needs and the only other option was to be home schooled. I've totally turned against most state secondary schools as a result of that experience. I can't be supportive of a school that gives detentions out for things that would have just been a minor niggle or not even slightly a problem when I was at school. And that when someone is absent from school for genuine mental health conditions (caused by the anxiety-inducing system in school) the absolute gaslighting of parents and children that goes on.

Ultimately your child's health and wellbeing is far more important than supporting the school. You have to have their backs.

why do (some) men make out that women are rigging the system to suit girls and women

Social climate. Men's rights, incels and other crap. That's why we're being told 'feminism is bad for women', why we're being asked about 'body count', why husbands and partners are 'making lists' of everything they do in the home and asking their resident woman 'what do you do for me?' It's all part of the same thing. Poor little men and boys, women no longer expect to be oppressed, so the men and boys have to try to find ways to keep women under control. 'No lady, you can't shag around, your body count will be too high and you'll be worthless!' 'Girls, if you do better at school than boys it's because the system is against boys'. It's all a load of sexist crap from the oppressors.

That's hilarious! Why have you hidden my perfectly reasonable answer?

@rainfallpurevividcat I understand what you mean about more strict schools. I was at a very rough comprehensive in the 90s where is was very difficult to get an education at all there was so much bad behaviour, (most) girls and quieter boys really suffered. I do hear teachers say that they have a lot of issues with parents pushing back when they just want the child to not bully other kids, be violent or even just doing required work to pass their course.

Why can't everyone just do well together?

Because that doesn't give men and boys any advantages.

@moonwatch it's an interesting theory.
An important thing to remember was when education was made free and available to both boys and girls Standard One actually wasn't until age 7 (what we now call Year 3).
Now children start more formal education at an earlier age - which makes a difference in the ability to "sit still to learn".

When people say that school today is designed to benefit girls, they aren’t talking about the traditional method of teaching- students at desks facing a teacher. They are talking about recent changes in teaching that have favoured girls such as seating girls closer to the front, calling on the them more often in class, and providing more 1:1 tutoring and attention. In addition to the classroom perks, many schools have events only for girls- like field trips to women in STEM days or field trips to meet local women who have started successful businesses. In addition, there are more bursaries for girls to help fund higher education.

The above is what people are talking about. The actions put in place to level up girls, has left some boys behind. That is the source of discontent.

teachers themselves say is that the biggest factor in a child doing well at school is in how the parents view education
I disagree, while it is a factor, the biggest factor is the quality of teaching and the ability of the teacher to engage their students. In deprived areas no amount of parental support or work will counteract underfunded, crumbling schools with teachers that can’t teach.

The things is many teachers, certainly in primary, could have their class running about outside for parts of the day but it's nigh on impossible to actually teach a lot of the curriculum (e.g. how to exchange in column subtraction) in this way. For some things you do need to sit down and concentrate. I always think a lot of these ideas about active learning probably involve a lot more of the active aspect than the learning. Ultimately to plan activities for boys to be outside, busy and actually learning would take up far more staff than are ever available and that's why we cram 30 children into classrooms, regardless of gender - cost.

Some girls have always been educated.

Elizabeth the first of England famously spoke at least four languages and had multiple tutors as a child.

Going earlier back hildegarde of bingen was one of the first post Roman women composers and writers.

When do you think girls started being educated?

Well no I am referring directly to when people do say it is the model of schooling i.e. desks facing the teacher, having to sit still and listen that was "designed for girls" to disadvantage boys.

Yes I know that, and I directly refer to that in my OP, most women were not and my point is that the classroom set up we have today was designed when it was boys who were educated in that fashion.

Can any teachers respond to this post by @SpiritAdder do you think this is correct or not?

Quote from SpiritAdder

"When people say that school today is designed to benefit girls, they aren’t talking about the traditional method of teaching- students at desks facing a teacher. They are talking about recent changes in teaching that have favoured girls such as seating girls closer to the front, calling on the them more often in class, and providing more 1:1 tutoring and attention. In addition to the classroom perks, many schools have events only for girls- like field trips to women in STEM days or field trips to meet local women who have started successful businesses. In addition, there are more bursaries for girls to help fund higher education.
The above is what people are talking about. The actions put in place to level up girls, has left some boys behind. That is the source of discontent.
teachers themselves say is that the biggest factor in a child doing well at school is in how the parents view education
I disagree, while it is a factor, the biggest factor is the quality of teaching and the ability of the teacher to engage their students. In deprived areas no amount of parental support or work will counteract underfunded, crumbling schools with teachers that can’t teach."

Those people don’t know what they are talking about imho. You are correct that the traditional model has been around for millennia and was applied to all students of both sexes.

@moonwatch it seems to me that many men know of their advantages due to their sex and see a level playing field as unfair.

Some men grumble that women are being promoted to higher roles that they took as their due.

The male rights started to get fully into swing at around about the same time as the pill. Women started being able to choose when they did or didn't have kids. Which previously was all women were considered for the phrase "she comes from good stock" making a slight reference to a women being akin to a well bred horse.

There are also women who have decided to live alone rather than live with a bloke who makes them feel alone. Less becomes the shame of being alone as a women (aka Bridget jones) this leaves a surplus of men who (by their own behaviour) are now wondering why they are alone in their dotage.

In my opinion maybe the male activist movement would gain more traction in the topics they care about, if they looked at their own behaviours/ belief systems and did a bit of self reflection as a whole, rather than peddling narrative that blaming women for them losing their god given due.

It's easy to compete in a narrow market but that market now has women in it, and society doesn't shame women for saying nah no thank you.

So some men have stepped up and got the girl/job/ by hard work but the others are likely to be alone at home having not seen a female in a long while and instead of going how do I make myself more attractive to women/ that promotion etc and do the lazy option and no not fair it's all those horrible women's fault and get vocal about how unfair it all it (unfortunately making any vaginas in the local facility shut tighter than a clam in their presence)

Again though just my opinion.

I tend to think royalty & aristocrats as a bit of an exception. These girls were mostly educated to be able to act as regents while their king/lord husband was away fighting a war.

It all depends too on where and when we are talking. Are we talking Western Europe from after the fall of the Roman Empire? Or are we talking late antiquity in Syria? Or Afghanistan today?

It's because girls in general, do better at school outside STEM. Therefore according to some, school is biased in favour of boys. However it's been known for a while that white, working class boys do the worst at school.

Why do you want only teachers to respond? What about parents?
seems to me you accurately reported how most teachers absolve themselves, so only asking them you will likely get the same response you always have- it’s the parents’ fault.

I would have thought that the original “desks facing the front” model was more to benefit the teacher than the pupil.

True, I am from a working class back ground and was probably of the generation where proper alternatives to further education started to dwindle. I know lots of very bright men who struggled in school but excelled at proper apprenticeships and had successful well paid careers in those areas. I really don't know, are these options less available now? Do schools recognise the talents of these boys (and sometimes girls) and guide them directly? Is this kind of work valued properly by society?

Because I want to know what teachers think of what you said, that is all it isn't an attack. Of course anyone can answer but I do want to know what teachers think if any care to answer.

Were there not changes to GCSEs and A levels in England from continuous assessment to just exams at the end?

And don't exams at the end of a course suit boys better than girls?