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?

Allowed?

Sign your sons' dad and uncles up as scouts leaders if you want a change. You realise it is unpaid?

This is the second time someone has quoted that. I think it's actually boys of mixed heritage or black carribean boys who even worse. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Just check actually it's Roma traveller girls who do the absolute worst....

My experience with three children is that parents and society (probably without thinking about it) make different demands.

We have often heard "isn't he supposed to be outdoor and play football?" when our son was doing homework or getting lessons.
Even worse the years he was a cathedral chorister doing extra music lessons.
People made a lot of remarks about being girlish singing in a choir attending a cathedral school. Apparently people thought it was more appropriate for the girls choristers than boys.
No one ever said that about our daughters doing homework or being tutored. It was just expeced.
It's seems like It's okay not to expect boys to do their best "but fool around being boys" but girls are expected to work hard and overachieve.

This is outdated and no longer true, everything that can be learnt has a YouTube video for it, a parent isn't required to have any knowledge, funding or ability - just enthusiasm for their child to learn.

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/203/education-committee/news/156024/forgotten-white-workingclass-pupils-let-down-by-decades-of-neglect-mps-say/

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/11-to-16-years-old/gcse-results-attainment-8-for-children-aged-14-to-16-key-stage-4/latest/

Boys underperform girls in all education systems, probably because there are higher rates of learning difficulties among boys. It's not something that can be eradicated by having some particular kind of education system.

It is true that boys underperform girls less in some countries, more than others, but the patterns do not fit any particular narrative. Male underperforming is most extreme in a) the Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden etc.) and b) the Middle East. Very different areas. The gender gap seems to be smallest in the East Asian countries, like Singapore.

Male underperformance (relative to girls) is worst in the Middle East...where boys nearly all have male teachers!

Girls have been doing better in school for years and last time I looked at the data they out performed boys in every single subject, including STEM. That was about 10yrs ago. This is despite the fact that in mixed sex schools boys tend to dominate in the classroom and have the curriculum more geared to them.The top performing boys still do extremely well, so they are not being prevented from succeeding.

I do think school is far too sedentary and more exercise is needed. I would have at least an hour of organised sport a day in school (including fun and friendly sport, not just competitive team options) as well as plenty of breaks. That is one of the big differences between state and private. On the whole, private schools do far more sport.

Maybe testosterone is to blame. I don’t know anything really about it except that hormones seem to have a huge impact on us all at various stages of our lives. I am repeatedly amazed at how much my own hormones impact on my mood and performance. Puberty hits boys later so for a lot of boys they are in the middle of it when they are doing their GCSE course.

I think it is very bad for boys. It isn’t good to have lots of underperforming boys leaving school and we need to try to solve it. There has been depressingly little interest in education from the public and from government though.

If you have a good education, a great job, good finance, not sick and own your home you are in a way better position to help your children with efucation than if you struggle with life.

I went to an all girls high school and it wasn't a very pleasant experience at all.

I saw lots of competiveness, bullying and disruption in the girls school I was subjected to, I would have much preferred to have gone to a mixed school like my primary setting.

Friends (girls) who went to a mixed secondary school had a more pleasant school experience than what I went through.

I appreciate this won't be everyones experience but if I had have had a daughter, not a chance would I send them to an girls school after what I experienced.

Schools were not designed "for" girls, but it just so happens that how they were designed, it turns out girls naturally do much better in these environments and exhibit the traits required to thrive in them in much higher numbers and to a higher degree.

So as soon as girls were allowed in schools, eventually they started doing better because they were even better at sitting down and concentrating than boys.

Not designed for them, they're just better at it anyway.

More exercise for kids would be a good idea, as an end in itself, because exercise is mentally and physically healthy. It will not narrow the gender gap. The biggest gaps of all are seen in the Nordic countries like Finland...which have the most outdoor time!

Too many parents excuse their child’s poor behaviour by blaming it on the structure of schools. I saw it years ago when my dc were small - comments like ‘he’s such a boy’ when a boy did something naughty that if a girl did it she’d get told off. It almost became competitive as to who had the loudest most energetic boy. Meanwhile the girls were expected to sit nicely and not shout. Drove me up the wall. PP with the chorister child has it spot on.

Single sex education is a benefit imo. I think girls would do better in environment surrounded by their own sex and some of the most successful private and grammar schools hold onto their single sex status. During adolescence the opposite sex act as a distraction and ,yes, these are hormonal teenagers. We have the danger of girls being judged by males from an early age in terms of looks etc. with consequent impact on self esteem.

There is little or confidence single sex education hinders social ability of girls or their life chances, on the contrary many have become more robust in the their assertiveness through it.

With the advent of mobile phones girls are also having to constantly aware of their actions and appearance in case boys are casually trying to picture then with obvious ramifications in terms of over all school discipline.

Boys tend to keep to themselves and girls the same anyway so you have de facto sex segregation. anyway.

Am I am old fashioned fart?

Girls do seem to do slightly better in single sex schools, but this thread is supposed to be about boys' underachievement. All other factors being equal, boys seem to do slightly worse in single sex, and countries where single sex schooling is the norm have bigger gender gaps, for a number of reasons.

I've taught in mixed schools and boys only, state and private. I'm female. The girls absolutely are not taught that they are there to make the boys lives better. Not in any school I've ever been in. What are your examples of this happening?

I went to a mixed sex school. That's a complete load of rubbish.

@mids2019 Not old fashioned just your opinion and that's okay.

However my own experience of an all girls school really was not pleasant. Alot of the girls I went to school with were just plain mean, bullying appeared to be fun for some of them and there were many who would disrupt the class.

Would I have had a better experience in a mixed school? I believe I would have but that I will never know, my friends (girls) who went to mixed schools certainly paint a better picture than my experience.

If schools started formal teaching at 7 like many other successful countries, I don't think we would be having this conversation right now.

In the depths of time, wealthy boys would have started prep at 7, nannies before that. Only a few would have continued past 14, many joining military or family business at that point.
Prep schools kept boys active, boarding schools days were long but spread out, even 25 years ago the day was split into blocks.
Boys typically suit block bursts not continuous sitting. Many kids would suit apprenticeship at 14 rather than being forced to stay in academic school.

Even when I started school in 1971 it was the term you turned 5 not just past 4. It was play based with only short bursts sat at tables.

Complete and utter nonsense?
Do you have sons that behave like this?
I have 3, all been to mixed sex school
This attitude does not exist with any of them or their friendship groups, in fact all count girls as some of their closest friends

What is this MN obsession with despising boys and lumping them all together as women haters

I don't agree. For a child to excel in education motivated parents and / or motivated children is the biggest driver. Not those you have listed. Visit any state grammar school in and around London. The families are not privileged, parents are often uneducated themselves, however they are motivated to drive their children to a better life than they have.

There is no excuse to not drive children to achieve a good education.

@bittertwisted I agree. The attitude some posters have on here towards boys is disgusting, on this post and others. I hope they don't have sons if they have that much hatred towards them