Teachers and education system bias towards girls

[asdmumandteacher]

What do you all think? I am a teacher (secondary) of 14 years and feel the secondary curriculum (and primary too) is heavily weighted towards girls' natural skills and less so to boys' skills. I have taught all girls for most of the last 14 years in selective (grammar)and high schools (the equivalent of secondary moderns) and i have two sons. We are forever hearing about girls outperforming boys (when in O level days twas the other way around and the 1967 Plowden report sort to redress the balance) I think it has gone way too far in the other direction.

OMG MotherInferior!!!Durr hurr

Lots of myths being spread about here. I've only got to page 36 on this
Raising Boys' Achievement research carried out over 4 years from the DFES and found these snippets...

"We have found
little evidence, for example, to support the notion that the dominant learning style of boys
differs from those of girls, and that more boys (than girls) favour kinaesthetic learning".

"Finally, our research does not support the notion that there is a case for boy-friendly
pedagogies. Pedagogies which appeal to and engage boys are equally girl-friendly. They
characterise quality teaching, and as such are just as suitable and desirable for girls as for
boys."

"The educational scene in mainland Europe
echoed similar concerns: in Belgium, research suggested that boys? culture was less studyoriented
than girls? and that this impacted upon achievement levels in secondary schooling
(Van Houtte, 2004); in Sweden, there has been a concern with the need to develop boys?
social competence and democratic understanding (Ohrn, 2001); in Germany girls have
been obtaining better school marks than boys, repeating classes less often and gaining
school certificates more successfully."

Some of these countries have their children start school a few years later than our own - in yet the educational achievement gender gap is similar in these countries. Can it still be that the issues with boys' achievement in the UK is down to starting school too young?

"What these schools identified was not so much
a gap in teaching reading but a need to focus on how to encourage boys to become
successful and satisfied readers. It was recognised that all the relevant reading skills had to
be in place, and, indeed, the reading buddies were given explicit instruction in the range of
strategies involved in teaching reading to the younger boys. But for many of the pupils,
even the youngest, it was not so much a matter of knowing how to decode text on the page
but of having a sense of ?what?s in it for me?. Talk and reflection about reading, sharing
ideas about what was enjoyable to read, between adults and pupils and between the pupils
themselves, were the means by which the technical skills of reading were successfully
linked to the boys? development of greater discrimination and independence as readers
and, eventually, higher standards of reading for most of them.
It became clear that discussion of reading made an important contribution to raising
standards of reading."

And here's another myth potentially dispelled.

"In June 2007 the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) produced the report Gender and education: the evidence on pupils in England. It summarises research and statistics on the gender gap in attainment and examines gender differences across a range of educational markers. It found that there was no evidence that an increase in the number of male primary teachers had an influence on boys' achievement. You can download the report from www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/genderandachievement/goodpractice/"

Spent quite a lot of time today composing renaissance Pavanes with year 10 to accompany the ball scene - i am aware of Will S

Thats the problem with stats - as ours have been shouted down the same could be said about those

Asdmumandteacher, am interested in what you do you do in the classroom to address the 'imbalance'?

Horsestories, thanks. I knew I had read similar reports before too.

Then why is Romeo and Juliet somehow so unsuitable for boys? Yes, it's about teenage lovers and underage sex. Last time I looked, boys were doing all that stuff too. There's stabbings, too. And rude jokes.

HS, that's extremely interesting. (And not just because it confirms my own prejudices .)

Both boys and girls loved the Romeo & Juliet SoW at my last school. Yes, obviously the content (gangs, stabbings etc), but it was the themes of forbidden love and family betrayal that resonated with our Year 8s from Tottenham.

ASDM, fivecandles has cited two studies. Nobody's shouted them down. Both of them are observation - the numbers - not the analysis of why this happens. The wider reports which HS cites appear actually to be looking at the analysis, and more to the point to a body of research.

Quote:from aforementioned Raising Boys Achievement

we have focused on single-sex classes as a
mode of organization in co-educational schools. There is emerging evidence, despite the reservations of those who feel that comprehensive schools should be co-educational in all
respects, that many girls and boys feel more at ease in such classes, feel more able to
interact with learning and to show real interest without inhibition, and often achieve more highly as a result.

Does this blow the myth about boys achieving at greater levels within co-ed....

Actually Horse, that pretty much supports what I've been saying.

That thinking about teaching strategies to appeal to boys is going to benefit girls too. In fact it's just about thinking about improving teaching and learning full stop.

And that one of the main reasons why boys underachieve is to do with motivation and attitudes precisely that 'what's in it fo rme?'

Ok maybe shouted down is a little strong

I currently teach all girls but have taught coed and boys only in my time

There lots more....

"Learning Styles
A great deal of energy has been spent, over the last decade, in identifying pedagogies
which are thought to be ?boy-friendly? and likely to be more effective in engaging boys in
learning. Such lessons are defined as having a fast pace, a series of short and tightly
focused activities, clearly defined and achievable aims and short-term targets. There is
frequently an emphasis on competition, and on variety, structure and activity within
lessons. Extensive classroom observations, across many triads in both primary and
secondary schools, confirm many of these characteristics of effective lessons. We must
recognise dangers, however, when we assume that such strategies are ?boy-friendly?."

I think I love the person who wrote up this report:

"Associated with this, there is sometimes an implicit ? and in some schools ? an
explicit acknowledgement that girls do not need to be taught in similarly interactive
and investigative styles, because they are often more cooperative and willing to
learn, and will learn whatever teaching style is used. This is both demeaning and
contestable."

Hooray!

'It found that there was no evidence that an increase in the number of male primary teachers had an influence on boys' achievement.'

But what about ATTITUDES that might have an important effect later on in secondary school.

And I wonder how easy it is to measure anyway.

I encourage my girls to question more and not accept things without thought - to cut the bs waffle they so often come out with and get straight to the desired answer, to have confidence in their analysis of a piece without having to dress it up with unnecessary words.

Umwa, I pretty much agree. Innate differences between the way boys and girls learn and achieve are probably very slight but PERCEPTIONS are huge and even though they're just perceptions they have a massive impact like the idea of reading being girly etc. No 'natural' reason why boys shouldn't read as much and as well as girls in the long-term but if they don't becuase of perceptions then their achievement and educational experience is likely to be affected.

There's so much more but I will stop and leave it up to others to read the report.

"The concern with competition is particularly difficult. Whilst some boys may thrive
in a classroom context which emphasises challenge, and be keen to engage in
activities in which there will be winners (and conversely losers), so will some girls,
and some boys will not be motivated in this way. Equally, though, there is
something perverse in trying to engage ?under-achieving? boys, who have often
failed to learn, in activities which, by emphasising the competitive element, expose
them to the risk of further failure. Unless success can be assured in these
competitive activities, there is the possibility of enhanced demotivation and
disengagement of these boys.
� The concern with competition often runs counter, too, to collaboration. In some
classrooms, it seems to us that girls perform better than boys because they use
more interactive and cooperative modes of learning, with the emphasis on
discussion and collaboration, working together on an issue or a problem, rather
than in isolation, and competition with others. This ability to talk through an issue,
to explore dimensions of the issue collaboratively with others, sustains and
supports more effective learning, and needs to be mirrored by more boys."

Absolutely FC and how do you quantify that?!

So if none of what some of us believe to be relevant is true - why are boys so far behind?

HS, if you read my posts you'll find that that research supports EXACTLY what I've been saying.

What I have been saying is that classroom activities need to be degendered so that reading is not seen as girly and competition is not seen as male.

I've said it several times.

And that all of this will benefit girls too.

Said it. Said it. I think that makes me a super teacher.

Spot on FC and on that note i am off - thanks girls - good chat again

Because as I have been saying most of it is about ATTITUDE and much of that is what boys bring in from outside school but intensified and developed by having lots of teenage boys with massive insecurities about their masculinity and sexuality together in a school environment.

So my solutions of 20.28 still stand.

Its common knowledge that the curriculum or rather the delivery of it, is girl bias, very much so in Primary.

The curriculum is written by more women, taught by more women etc etc etc.......

Its going to happen........

Nobody ever said that boys couldn't do it just that they often lack the motivation or get distracted by other things.

That said, the stuff about the early starting age is still relevant.

And the fact that if teachers perceive a child as badly behaved or unwilling to work or not very clever then that label can stick and lead to a vicious cycle where they become increasingly demotivated, less confident and badly behaved.

The research I sited earlier stated that girls are ahead in certain areas (which are formally taught and assessed in school) before they even start school so it would be hard for teachers and the children themselves not to make negative comparisons between boys and girls which then compound the problem.