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?

There is still a sexism issue with students that are less academically successful…usually working class and usually taught in an underfunded, under resourced comprehensive with less than well qualified teachers and yet it is the parents’ fault- the boys are directed into apprenticeships for high earning trades like gas engineer, decorator, plumber, electrician while girls are directed to low earning trades like hair dressing, cosmetics and shop floors.

edited to add recent BBC article on this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k3k9y2dp3o

I know from some initiatives in London that aim to change this the boys that are directed into apprenticeships are white working class boys.

Why do (some) women make out that men and boys are the root of all evil and women are to be treated as perfect, special creatures entitled to every advantage?
I'm a woman.

You bring up some really good points. My sister is a teacher and tell me that the focus on 'toxic masculinity' doesn't do much for boy's self esteem.

In my opinion, everything seems too focused on university. Once, you started at the bottom and worked your way up or trained up while working. Now you seem to need a degree to get your foot in the door.

Parents have a role in this too, parents who value education and take an interest in their studies seem to get better results. There's also an argument about a lack of male role models, especially dads.

Boys would do better at school if every time they behaved badly people wouldn't say 'boys will be boys' but would discipline them. Toxic masculinity is the issue, not lack of exercise during the school day (both boys and girls do better at school if they have regular exercise).

As you say OP the best outcome comes from children whose parents work with the school their children are at.

No one size fits all he/she/they.

Class of 25-30 children. What do you do?

If you, as a parent, feel strongly about a single sex school for your child(ren), move into a catchment area for that, if you can't pay private, when they are young. If that isn't possible work with the school you have.

Teachers have plenty to do already.

Parents have a role in this too, parents who value education and take an interest in their studies seem to get better results.

This is true so long as the parents are capable of assisting their children in their studies. Unfortunately many working class parents can’t help with homework, can’t explain things and don’t have the funds to hire tutors or take educational trips. So it’s more than simply valuing education, it is also having the resources to actively support your child’s education.

I don't feel strongly about it really I am just curious, I just think the argument where they say the system is rigged against boys is largely false and a bit of a cop out.

I have sons and daughters and I do think a huge negative impact for boys have been that male teachers are becoming increasingly rarer. They've all but vanished in primary and its happening in secondary too. In state schools anyway, private schools not so much. Boys need male mentors, some female teachers is of course fine, but when it becomes predominally female then the boys are really missing out on something there. I know that view won't be accepted on here though. DS is 14, his favourite subjects are history, all the sciences and PE. He has NEVER yet had a male teacher in any of these subjects, other than supply/cover. It's such a shame. And it's not limited to school either, his old scout unit now has a female leader. How is that even allowed? I'm not even going to get into how much money and effort goes into the girls football, rugby team etc compared to the boys. Its sickening. I have DD 12 at same school so I am in a position to directing compare. I just think males are viewed so negatively currently in society that it's hugely impacted how we see boys and education is a part of that.

Mixed sex schools teach girls they only exist for the benefit of boys.

Utterly ridiculous.
I went to a mixed sex school and it certainly didn’t teach me I only exist for the benefit of boys.

That's not what I meant. I meant families who value education, attend parents evenings, encourage them to work hard and do their homework as well as show an interest. You can do that without throwing money at it or working out trigonometry.

Apparently Scouts has had female volunteers since it's inception but as it's now a mixed sex organisation I'm not sure why that would be surprising nowadays.

Schools really do need male teachers too. Unfortunately no one ever tries to 'get men into teaching' in the same way we try to 'get women into STEM' because it's not valued enough as a profession. If we want more male teachers, all teachers need to be paid more.

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.

This isn't a thing I have ever been told to do, nor have I seen it as advice anywhere in teaching.

If there was any instruction to call on girls more often it would probably be to avoid the problem that boys tend to dominate classroom conversation and to give girls a fair crack of the whip.

When men talk about the 'feminisation' of education, it's usually a complaint that most teachers are female, particularly at primary school. The main reason for this is that men don't apply to be teachers. Men who do apply to be teachers, particularly at primary school, find themselves promoted rapidly and paid better than their female counterparts. The gender pay gap in education is worse than other sectors.

If men want a more 'masculine' education system, more of them need to go into teaching, because they tend to talk about role models, therefore need to be one.

Boys significantly underperform compared to girls at GCSE, except in maths and physics. This is usually attributed to their poor performance in English and due to the fact that boys do not read as much as girls. There have been many initiatives to get boys reading more, including boy-only reading clubs, posters of David Beckham reading, instructions to popular male PE teachers to be 'caught reading' by their pupils. Choices of texts to study in English for years have been dominated by supposedly 'boy-friendly' texts with main male characters such as Holes, or war poetry, to try not to put-off boys. What the girls think of these texts is generally irrelevant.

So men - become teachers and read more in front of and with your sons. 👍

Honestly? I don’t think traditional schooling really benefits children. We’re much more aware of children’s brains now and actually want them to thrive as opposed to just be obedient and survive.

It only ever really suited certain jobs.

Agree

dd has adhd and school isn’t working for her in its traditional form

Well, hasn't society changed in the last few years?
Last century, if a woman did well ( meaning better than any man), she was being favoured- including in return of sexual exchanges..... that would be the talk around.
Now, in this century, if our girls are doing statistically better than our boys in our own schools..... oh yeah, favoritism.... it could not possibly be that they are statistically better at learning whatever subject. That is not possible, right?
I dispair.
But nevermind, girls and women will continue to do well, occassionally, better than others.
Regarding the females in STEM, it is important to encourage them into those subjects. Honestly, getting the hand of some bits is not easy and the amount of times I have seen females fobbed off it, particularly by males, I cannot count. They only need a bit of encouragement. Much scientific work has been done by females, but claimed by males, that is a historic sad true. Time to turn the tide to a fair ground.

Well that's a reason to send your son to a single sex school if they have them in your area as they tend to have more male teachers.

Though I actually know more men who from late 30s to 50 changed career to become teachers.

Unfortunately, like with their female counterparts who stayed as teachers, most end up working in the private sector.

@Alectoishome he doesn’t have a male PE teacher? That does seem unusual.

When you ask why it is allowed that his old scout unit has a female leader… (1) you are aware that girls can now join scouts? (2) you are aware that leaders are volunteers and therefore (3) have you encouraged your DH/DBro/male friends to volunteer as scout leaders?

I am in my late 40s and my brother’s Akela was a woman, so this is nothing new.

@Alectoishome oh and the reason why "money" goes into the girls football and rugby team is that lots of sports clubs in the UK are charities and do outreach services to maintain their charitable status.

As the England women's football, rugby union and cricket teams have been doing well in the last few years more of the clubs are sending out their players and staff to coach girls in schools in the aim of getting them playing at club level and further. (Once you are secondary age you don't need a parent to take you training.) For boys there are well established routes into most sports and parents tend to take their boys from when they are primary age to do sport outside school.

I know people who have been involved in doing this over the years plus I have seen the Lawn Tennis Association do the same about a decade ago but they were targeting primary school kids in a specific area. In addition myself, friends and extended family members who are much younger than me all had access to external sports facilities at age 14-16 due to different sports allowing us to use their facilities and offering coaching for free.

We need a root and branch over hall of education.
Imagine the most boring uninspiring person you've ever heard talk, some children, many children are having to sit through that endlessly every day and we expect them to sit still and be good. And... Learn.

How true!

How ridiculous. What a senseless comment to make, claiming that mixed sex schools teach girls they only exist for the benefit of boys! I've heard some rubbish spouted on here but that is really up there as one of the most nonsensical claims ever heard on MN.

Truth hurts.

MRA morons are angry because girls are doing better academically. They have to find a way of explaining that as if it's somehow women's fault that boys lag behind, because the alternative explanation is that girls are actually smarter, listen better, and work harder. They will never admit that.
All this blather you hear about boys needing activities is equally true of girls. All children get restless and need activity. Girls are just more willing sit still and be attentive because they don't feel entitled to be having fun all the time.
Male entitlement is always their downfall. The MRA goons think even more entitlement is the solution, that classes need to be structured specifically with boys in mind, to include a lot of competition, but competition breeds hostility and can lead to fights. It's just another way of indoctrinating boys in toxic masculinity.

*Part of the reason why boys and men are falling behind women in education particularly is that they are developmentally behind girls. Cal State Fullerton professor Loakim Boutakidis has a specialty in child and adolescent studies, and examined how developmental psychology impacts boys’ performance in educational settings compared to girls.
“Studies have shown that boys may be a bit behind girls developmentally when they begin formal classroom instruction. When it comes to the parts of the brain that are about executive functioning, delayed gratification and self regulation, those mature later for boys than they do for girls,” said Boutakidis. “Once boys are on this trajectory, it tends to generate these self-sustaining effects, and the gap continues to widen as they go through high school and college.” *

https://spartanshield.org/42176/feature/its-a-girls-world/

So males, on average, are less emotionally mature and have poorer executive functioning. Therefore, they are, on average, less intelligent.
From what I have seen, a lot of men never develop the ability to delay gratification and regulate themselves. Our culture encourages them not to with the old "boys will be boys" excuse for asinine behaviour. Plus, well behaved, studious boys will be considered effeminate and singled out for bullying, so often they have to pretend to be one of the idiots.

It is not the schools at fault and it is not girls/women at fault. It is boys/men doing it to themselves.