only 1% of oxbridge students got free school meals

[itsawonderfuldarleneconnorlife]

DM link

Is there any solution to this other than bringing back grammars for every county?

Have looked through the guardian link - it's talking more about single sex SCHOOLS rather than groups within a school, which I guess would give a different focus.

from the research quoted;
"Whilst not being affected directly by their peers, the gender make-up of classrooms may lead
to differential teaching methods within the classroom. Whilst teachers may believe that they
do not use different methods with girls and boys, Younger et al (1999) find evidence that boys
and girls are treated very differently in the classroom. Students claim that boys receive more
negative attention than the girls, and there is evidence that teachers have a lower tolerance
21
level to boys? behaviour than to girls, which can ?lead to male disillusionment and a negative
reaction to learning?. (Younger et al 1999, 339) However, they also comment that there is
little evidence in observed lessons that boys are given ?more support than girls in the teacher-
learning process? (Younger et al 1999, 339). Furthermore, Dee (2007) finds that girls taught in
a classroom with a female teacher and boys taught with a male teacher tend to perform better
than pupils with a teacher of the opposite gender, suggesting that female teachers may direct
learning in a way that is more likely to benefit girls rather than boys. This, when combined
with Macleod (2005) who comments that only 15.7% of all primary school teachers in England
are male and half of 5 to 11 year olds have no contact with male teachers implies that girls are
likely to benefit more in education due to the gender of teachers."

And that same research finds that 'both boys and girls do better if there are fewer boys or more girls.'

Another interesting one!

'It concludes: ?The strategies recommended have been divisive and often counter-productive in terms of their emphasis on gender differences and give the impression that all that was needed was to treat the two sexes as separate, homogenous groups.?

The report, by academics at Roehampton University, blames gender stereotyping by parents and teachers for exaggerating the gender gap. Entrenched attitudes based on ill-founded assumptions about gender roles mean that perceived differences between supposedly masculine subjects (such as physics) and so-called feminine ones (such as literacy) will increase over time, it cautions. It adds that there is no hard evidence that single-sex teaching improves boys? results. Instead, the report suggests that schools should challenge stereotypes and encourage boys and girls to diversify their skills and interests. '

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article2419363.ece

Well, that's all about male or female teachers and not about male or female classrooms.

Anyway, as I say for every example you find that says single sex teaching is a good thing you'll find probably twice as many saying the opposite!

sorry missed out in science from the previous quotation. So your example suggests boys may do better without girls in English but that both boys and girls do better with more girls in science.

Again though, that is suggesting that you shouldn't 'hardwire' kids that science is for boys and english is for girls - absolutely! But teaching them separately wouldn't do that, unless you said "I'm teaching you separately because the boys are all rubbish at english."

My cousin has just been accepted to an Oxford college and I am very very proud of him.

He attends the local sixth form college having been educated at the local comp and whilst trying not to be biased he is naturally very intelligent and works hard.

fivecandles, that's exactly what it says - that for english you should teach separately but together for maths and science.

I do agree that there's a problem with a lack of male teachers but again I see that as part of a wider social problem which sees teaching (and often learning) as something for girls and women while boys and men get on with the real business of doing.

Anyway, this is a bit of a digression.

Whatever your views you must see that single sex teaching is hardly going to revolutionise opportunities for kids from low income families!

Yes, Lily, but that's just 1 example. As I say there are at least 10 others which say that boys benefit from being with girls in English and other subjects. And the DCFS says there is no conclusive evidence either way!

It does depend on what the study is measuring - this one is a purely statistical one.Anecdotally, I teach boys (outside a school environment) in a very 'girly' subject, they love it, but I know if there were girls there they would first of all switch off, and then stop coming. So I do agree that it can be beneficial. I also see how much my boys benefit when they are in an all-male environment for some things (eg ds1 does gymnastics, and he loved it when he went into the 'all boy' group). So that backs up what I've read.

It is a bit of a sidetrack from the 'why more children on FSM aren't getting into Oxbridge' - but anything schools can do to help kids do better is worth looking at I think.

No, Lily, if you teach boys and girls separately you are saying that there are essential differences between them and the way they learn. That can only reinforce stereotypes. It's also an issue about equal opportunities. What if you have a son who is sensitive and loves reading and creative writing but is stuck in the class with a load of boys or a daughter who is the oppositee. It is saying boys and girls are essentailly differnet and they are all the same when we should be encouraging all our children to learn from each other regardless of their gender.

But there's no conclusive evidence that single sex education DOES help.

Better to look at strategies which have been proven or might be proven to work don't you think?

And we're talking about kids from low income bacgkrounds not specifically boys I thought.

I disagree with that statement - a boy can be sensitive and creative within a boy's environment, definitely. And you are not 'ranking' them by splitting them, you are simply doing something a bit differently.

Fwiw, I loathed the Gareth malone programme about taking boys out the classroom to do fun outdoorsy things while the girls did colouring and writing, I really did think that was reinforcing stereotypes. But that's not what is being suggested (by me anyway). Some of the research I quoted suggests that one of the reasons boys in mixed groups fall behind is because they feel intimidated by the girls (the 'won't put your hand up' syndrome), and splitting them would solve that.

Anyway, as you say, it's a complex issue. But worth thinking about.

fivecandles - my point about languages is true. You would have to be totally ignorant to argue that it isn't.

Perhaps you think the world is flat?

Here's another report Boys do better in creative subjects in single sex schools

That ties in with the other study, suggesting that girls can intimidate boys in traditional 'girls' subjects.

Mmm... but it's going to be harder to be a sensitve and creative boy in a whole class full of boys isn't it? Especially when you've sent out the message by dividing them that they are different and learn differently from boys. Likewise to be a girl who is prepared to subvert stereotypes in a class full of girls. What if you're a boy or a girl who likes to mix and learn from with kids of both genders? Seems to be this can only be denying opportuntiies and reinforcing stereotypes. Given there's no conclusive evidence and the logistical implications it makes much more sense to put time and money into proven strategies or trying new ones.

But we could go on for ever ping ponging links Lily. For every one you find I could find one that says the opposite. What does that tell you?

Here for example:

'Teenagers who attend single-sex schools do no better in exams than those in co-ed schools, according to research from the Institute of Education in London, but they are twice as likely to study subjects not traditionally associated with their gender.'

'Nor, they argue, is there any conclusive evidence that the popular practice of teaching boys and girls in separate classes for some subjects raises achievement.

They reviewed research evidence on single-sex education for the past 20 years both in this country and abroad. The findings, drawn from the an Equal Opportunities Commission study in the early Eighties to a recent study by Professor Alan Smithers and Dr Pamela Robinson, suggest that single-sex education has little impact on girls' academic achievement. Most studies in Australia, the United States and Ireland have reached similar conclusions.'

www.nationalliteracytrust.net/research/ressinglesex.html

What point about languages Bonsoir?

pingpong

Yep, let's leave the gender thing to one side. It's a whole other debate.

fivecandles Thu 23-Dec-10 20:09:04

There's loads more on this but this should give you some idea of why English is so much more difficutl than French. It's why we have more dyslexics in this country. Dyslexia is relatively unknown in countries where spelling is so much more logical like France.

LilyBolero much of the current research on the benefits of single sex education was sponsored by the association of single sex schools

historically there has always been more female primary teachers than males the difference is now many boys are growing up in homes without male influence so should schools have to compensate?

LilyBolero Avoiding weaknesses would be not teaching english to boys at all. rubbish boys are equally as good as girls at English. The boys in my class over the years regularly outperform the girls in reading and writing.