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?

@ Reugny. Show mw the statistics that support poor white boys eventually do better than other groups. I am talking about the boys growing upon estates where parents, grandparents have never had jobs.
Most companies now have targets about increasing the number of workers from different ethnic backgrounds. inclusivity is demanded.
There isn't the same support for poor white boys who are the group always at the bottom of the recruitment pile. I avoid using the term working class because these men will never have jobs
www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-most-disadvantaged-group-in-britain-white-working-class-men/

Yes I’d be interested in those statistics.

This is the group who are mainly struggling to achieve in schools.

Politicians cannot go with the easy option. They cannot ignore an underbelly of society that has nothing to lose. If you do that there is a danger of civil unrest.
School has to prepare children to fit into society. To have jobs and contribute to the economic growth and stability of the country.
Educators can organise schools along traditional lines with lovely textile classes for girls etc but ultimately society needs workers. For whatever reason, a lot of older women choose not to be engaged economically active. There has to be an expectation that men and women contribute and make use of their education.

No they don’t have to do Textiles anymore. And it was introduced as compulsory in the late 90’s to prepare people for the workforce.

It is no longer compulsory but the thinking skills and STEM aspect go a long way to help produce a workforce.

So whilst they were ‘lovely classes’ and easy to sneer at, the subject covered every aspect of the curriculum and is exactly what the textile industry which is a massive employer in the U.K. wanted. 1 in 25 jobs are in textiles in the U.K.

Furthermore it used to be requested by dental schools as it develops/ shows fine motor skills more than any other subject. It’s also a STEM subject.

Why deride what you know nothing about?

ukft.org/industry-reports-and-stats/

I too taught a subject that was traditionally a favourite of girls but I worked hard to encourage students to opt for it. I succeeded in increasing numbers and having significant numbers of boys opting for it. The LA advisor sent in subject teachers from other schools to try and use ideas to boost the subject elsewhere.
We also kept track of the subjects students went on to study at a higher level. I was pleased that my department was instrumental in students choosing to further their study at university.
It is too easy to accept boy subjects and girl subjects. It is why so much money has gone into encouraging girls into STEM subjects.

And in most schools, emotional issues are dealt with by the Pastoral Team not in academic lessons. I cannot remember any inset suggesting that academic teaching staff keep boxes of tissues in a classroom instead of sending students to trained pastoral staff. It sounds irregular.

Very interesting topic (caveat that I haven't read the full thread yet).

I have taught at primary level, still work in education, am a current school governor and have one 7-year-old DD. My own experiences in numerous schools have led DP and I to be very fixed on a single sex school for my daughter at secondary level.

We are actually attending school open days recently, and have noticed a marked contrast between the demeanour of the girls in the girls' schools (sparky, smiley, confident, good public speakers) and those in the mixed ones (much more muted and less vocal and articulate). This may of course be coincidence, but I do think there is something to be said for an environment that puts girls and their needs front and centre, rather than having to tailor things to boys who, in many cases, are the more reluctant learners.

The primary I'm currently spending a lot of time in is also an excellent advertisement for single sex education; it's a lovely school with a great reputation, but even here so much teaching time is lost to low level disruption by boys who are struggling to focus, while the girls in the class sit patiently waiting to get on with things. In many cases it's not actually the boys' fault as such - some of them have unmet needs (SEND, especially ADHD) and it is very obvious that many of them struggle with the static (and, let's face it, pretty dry) nature of the primary curriculum atm. I personally wish the curriculum could be overhauled and become more active and creative again, but none of this is the girls' issue to resolve.

Where I am many mixed secondaries have gone super strict/zero tolerance in an effort to counter exactly this kind of disruption, which seems to make girls in particular meeker and less likely to assert themselves, whereas the girls' schools (in my experience) allow their students to take up space, question and find their voice.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

‘It sounds irregular’

Get you

Every teacher had a fucking box of tissues on their desk.We used to get them from stationery dept. Even teens have emotions.

I've got a box of tissues in my classroom, and I didn't need an INSET to suggest to me that it might be useful.

Of course you might need a box of tissues for snotty nosed kids but are you all really suggesting that in subjects that in your particular schools only girls choose to opt for like textiles ( not the case in the school I taught in because it was part of art and design and wasn't sold as only for girls) and as part of that they would weep in your lessons. Did that happen when you were being observed or having an Ofsted inspection? In most schools pastoral care is dealt with by trained pastoral leaders and not in an academic class.
Are you suggesting education for girls needs to focus on traditional subjects like textiles? In which case most educators in the UK would not agree.
I think about the terrible situation in Afghanistan and women like Malala who fight to get women equal educational opportunities, 'One child, one teacher, one book, one pen, can change the world.
Nothing about special classes focusing on traditional girly subjects for girls and boy subjects for boys only, thank goodness.

from my not so recent experience grade 6, 11 year old girls can be very hormonal and emotional.

along with stationary on the list was 6 full sized boxes of kleenex and that request was repeated in january.

but the tears had to do with standard growth and development along with class room dynamics. not the style of teaching or education (which was a very unique somewhat open plan set up where movement between classroom and teaching spaces was encouraged gradeK-6).

Spot on my youngst daughter's primary school class. 4 girls and 14 boys.

The girls are well-behaved and are constantly caught up in noise and trouble.
However a handful of boys have the same challenge. These pupils (my guess is 8-10) spend a lot of time on nothing then teachers try to handle the rest of class. My guess is 2 SEN children.

Our daughter has a place at a private mix secondary school next year and we are looking forward to meet motivated for education children. Single sex isn't an option around here.

I have English as a second language. The teachers are generally amazed that our bilingual children do above average with an ESL mum. This has always puzzled me as I am quite well educated from my home country and have always worked in the UK.

The boys who have challenges come from completely different homes. They are white, native, the parents are doing highly paid jobs, work a lot and do not prioritize the children. The attitude is, well, boys will be boys and carry on. We don't meet poor boys or uneducated parents around our neighbourhood so it's not an issue.

You haven’t read my post.

We tried very hard to recruit boys. I also taught art and we could recruit boys easily to that.

The school was Ofsted outstanding, so were the staff and so were my results. We had the best results in the city in both areas.

Why are you so superior and arrogant that you know SO much about how kids react in the classroom?