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?

All London state grammars intakes are driven by educated Indian, Nigerian and Chinese families whose professions don’t necessarily reflect their education. Eg most carers have degrees from home countries (that aren’t always recognised here so they need to work in low paid jobs).

I'm not really sure how much you can say that the education system was "designed" at all. "Developed" might be a better word; education has changed slowly (and sometimes quickly) over the centuries. Some of those changes will benefit boys, some girls, some both and some neither.

The current big issue in education IMHO is that no one seems to be able (or maybe willing) to tell the difference between education and child care so parents can work, which I don't think benefits boys or girls.

Given that supposedly the education system is tilted towards girls, boys and men have done incredibly well out if it. We're still trying to close the pay gap and get more women into senior roles.

The problem is that women, after years of oppression and misogynistic attitudes have just got on with it. Men (generally) unfortunately haven't grown at the same rate and don't want the status quo to change, after all it benefits them. Some groups of men now look at every area and complain about women having an advantage. Their energy would be better spent looking at what they themselves can do to move forward, develop and grow. Why for example aren't more men going into teaching? If they want more male teachers then step up!!! Unfortunately many still look to women to sort things out that they don't like or that don't advantage them.

I have 2, DD went to an all girls, DS mixed. Both decisions based on personality, what they wanted and what I believe is best. They are private though so both have a good mix of female and male teachers.

Yep sure.

Having talked about this over the years with my DW (she was at an all girls grammar school - I was at an all boys one), the conclusion we came to was that girls' schools are about education and boys' schools are about maintaining discipline.

Our DCs went to a mixed comprehensive and we were more than happy with their education.

What absolute nonsense! Why are you teaching your girls that they are not good enough to compete with boys and need to be segregated?!

I went to a mixed school and all the top pupils in the year were girls (including me). We certainly didn't feel we needed any special treatment or were scared of going against boys in academics.

Girls are kept to a higher standard of behaviour from very young and would therefore behave better and perform better in any structured school environment. These men would not be able to design a school where boys outperform girls, but they should actually try instead of just asking for girls to be brought down a peg or two.

FWIW my DS had the Scottish play based learning for two years and imo it benefits the pushy, confident kids who are happy to push other kids away from the more interesting activities - maybe boys, tbh, but not in a good way.

I think it's due to socialisation. We raise our girls to be compliant and supportive and caring for others. We raise our boys with excuses for bad behaviour and much more tolerance. It's not that boys are naughty compared to girls it's that they get away with it more than the girls do so this affects their behaviour. I see it with my own children both my son and daughter have SEN but my dd gets pulled up for behaviour my son will have excused as being due to his SEN.

I find the stats on how well boys/girls do in single sex/mixed school fascinating. It may interest some to know that these patterns play out in other areas. Married men live longer than single men while married women live shorter than single women. Why is this? I think it's socialisation. Women care for their husbands in ways men don't care for their wives. Significantly more men leave their wife when she is diagnosed with long term illness, women do not tend to leave their husbands if they get sick and require their care and support. Women are far more common to be carers than men both paid or unpaid. My own mother recently had an operation and despite having a son who lives closer and who has a stay at home wife to watch the children she asked me to pop in with shopping and help with cooking cleaning when I live further away and am a single parent with SEN children. She asked my brother to drive her to her appointments though and to cut her hedge (which he then outsourced). Talking to friends this experience with an aging parent seems very common. We as a society gender roles and behaviours and it's an insidious drip drip into our children's heads.

Equality when you have been privileged feels like oppression.

Girls do better with how schools are set up because they are socialised to be more compliant and to try to please. Their poor behaviour as children naturally pushing and learning boundaries has them pulled up. Whereas boys are more likely to have such behaviour excused as boys will be boys or they are just boisterous or spirited they expect to have such behaviour excused going forward instead of changing their behaviour as girls tend to. And paying attention in a classroom setting, and with best efforts at homework or just getting it done and handed in ? Being socialised as a girl gives you the advantage to attainment.

To improve to life of girls takes people making the effort. Who is more likely to be socialised to put in extra unpaid effort for other people? The example of female scout leaders is an excellent example- it's unpaid voluntary work. The parent of a male child says it's not right and expects the 'problem' fixed for their child rather than consider their male family members should take on the task. Women see a need for our girls and we tend to organise and do something not moan about how unfair it is for our girls. Well maybe we moan too but we will consider ourselves in the solution too

Poor white boys historically do very badly at school. I am talking about the boys who turned out in numbers at the recent riots. They are frequently excluded from school and they are regarded as failures from the moment they go into education. Sons of immigrants are far more likely to do better at school because of parental expectations.
This is a huge problem when a group of children are regarded as failures and given no stake in society.

Everyone in education knows that the group being failed by schools are poor white boys. Middle class boys generally do well. Boys from backgrounds who recognise the importance of education do well. Girls do well. However poor boys have traditionally been written off.

https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/class-differences-ethnicity-and-disadvantage/?gadsource=1&gbraid=0AAAAApnz-UvcttJmgNweQ6co-RJdEgne&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyyn7ztXiiAMVF5JQBh2F8RKLEAAYASAAEgLFCvD_BwE

Boys from Chinese, Hong Kong backgrounds do better than other groups. Yale or Harvard tried to accept students on a totally blind application one year. Only going on exam results. There was a huge imbalance with the vast majority of students being boys from certain ethnic backgrounds.

Traditionally girls have done well at secondary level but often don't perform as well at university and beyond. Medical Schools could fill all places with girls but the drop out rate is high and few women in comparison with men want demanding medical roles that take them away from young families. Women often choose to be GPs and part time at that.
It is easy to say girls do better at school but you have to look at the long view. The world and work isn't run like a school. There are a lot of jobs that women still don't want to do. I am talking statistics. Generally speaking, they don't want jobs that demand frequent absences from home or unsocial hours. There have been huge efforts to get women into civil engineering but if it involves travelling all over the country or all over the world many women don't want it.

I was a secondary school teacher for years.

Girls have an advantage over boys in coursework. I swear this is why Gove changed it to all exams.

However white working class boys are the lowest educational performers.

Boys were generally more disruptive than girls.

I also found girls wanted A* Boys just wanted to pass on the whole.

I taught Textiles and Graphics. Textiles has the lowest take up of boys out of any subject nationally no matter how hard we tried. They were lovely classes. But often split down a sex divide. Interestingly the quieter more academic boys did Graphics. The less academic went for RM. This was before Gove dicked about with the exams.

The Textilw results were always off the scale. The girls used to say it was nice being in classes with just girls.

The girls also felt freer we to express their feelings without boys around l always has a box of tissues…

No wonder all the gender disappointment posts are about having a boy
If I had no children and read this site I would be absolutely terrified of having a boy

Such hatred and fear, it's really upsetting.

I agree with the last two posts. It is important to ensure everyone has a stake in education. Lovely as it may be to have all girl textiles classes, it is importantly that educational opportunities are inclusive regardless of sec, class and race. Otherwise society will have marginalised and excluded groups. This isn't healthy or good in the long run.

So many women still choose to exclude themselves from paid work. Understandable when children are small but the majority of economically inactive women that the politicians talk about are women. Many of these women will have done well at school but choose not to work. Society needs to be more even and ensure everyone plays a part

I taught a subject that was traditionally female. I was proud that I managed to attract equal numbers of boys to opt for it.
I loved teaching all students,girls and boys. Most boys are charming, funny and if you make them feel that they can succeed , hard working.

Yet look at job statistics of who is more likely to be unemployed at 18+

It isn't poor white boys it is actually their ethnic minority counterparts.

The point is this group of boys and their parents don't think they have to do well at school because they will get jobs anyway.

I was reading up and listening to a podcast on IVF in the US. Apparently parents there choose to have girls over boys due to expectations.

I think if you read my post, l said we tried very hard to get boys to take it up.

They just didn’t want to. I wasn’t excluding them in any way. The graphics classes were also delightful and they were mainly boys. But this thread was about girls education.

Was l supposed to hold a gun to their heads?

Why is this?

Caring responsibilities? Ill health?

Lovely as it may be to have all girl textiles classes, it is importantly that educational opportunities are inclusive regardless of sec, class and race.

I agree. My further maths classes are very boy-heavy which is a big concern given that STEM is an area in which there is a severe shortage of workers, and which leads to many of the highest-paying jobs.

How do you suggest increasing the proportion of girls taking further maths A-level?

I agree. There are some very sweeping generalisations on here about boys and girls. I'm female and of course I support the progress of young women to do well educationally. But we can't approach this from such a divisive perspective as lumping all boys as being disruptive, arrogant, complacent, and hindering girls' education. It sends the wrong message to boys and girls.
And in any case, most parents don't have the option of choosing between single sex or co-ed. Or where I am in a grammar county, you can have that choice if your child qualifies for grammar, but no such choice exists if your child doesn't pass (which is the majority).

If there were no girls being educated at the time, what is there to compare it to?

The boys might have been doing a lot less well than they should have been, but still a lot better than the girls.