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.

Dont quite understand how you can say its geared towards girls more than boys but then say you are generalising,and there is only a 'grain' of truth.

Very interesting.

Firstly I disagree that coursework always leads better retention than cramming as was suggested earlier. I profoundly disagree with that.

Secondly, I don't in any way "blame" girls and women: it's just getting the balance right that's all.

Thirdly, I agree with asdmum that it's not just the methodology, it's the agendas hidden in the syllabus. It's difficult for to articulate. But for example (and I don't know if this is what you mean asdmum) geometry and maths at primary stages are usually taught with reference to cooking, shopping and so on, rather than shapes on a football field or skateboard park. This doesn't BEGIN to address the issue and is really very minor. But I think it's the start of something. Do you see what I mean?

I've posted this before and there was utter outrage: HOW DARE YOU DISCRIMINATEIN THAT WAY I MAKE BUNS WITH MY SON I TAKE HIM SHOPPING etc etc. I think that misses the point really.

I find that statistic about 11+ results extremely interesting. I had no idea.

Also, I think this whole debate involves some generalisation. Of course! That was just a way of accepting that I know that whatever any of us say, doesn't hold true for EVERY boy and EVERY girl.

I think that's quite reasonable isn't it?

Is it my imagination - or are there proportionately less male teachers in primary schools now thatn there used to be? In my primary school days (ok it was a long time ago) it was roughly 50:50 male and female at junior (KS2) level at the school I went to.

When we were looking at schools for ds1, of the schools we looked around only one (which he's now at) had any male teachers. Just wondered if the increasing female-ness of primary education in particular might have anything to do with the longer term - even at secondary - performance of boys, and whether it would help to get more male teachers back into our primary schools?

So teachers and education system are biased toward articulate, communicative hardworking girls and discriminate against disruptive, lazy boys? Terrible isn´t it.

Science teachers, do u gear up your science teaching to girls to try and increase interest and uptake in this subject?

Nonappies whatever is the point of being sarcastic. My boy isn't lazy or disruptive and it would just suit him better to learn in a different way. I'm not saying Change It Now for my son's sake and sod all the girls.

"It is girlcentric as it is focussed at primary level at ability to express yourself, language acquisition, imaginative play, conformity, role playing (altho am not primary teacher) which girls are traditionally stronger at...which is fine but redress the balance i say in the curriculum and i know i am not alone"

It is not just 'the ability to express yourself'. It is about explaining why things happen, sharing facts and knowledge. This is very simplistic.

Imaginative play?! Goodnes me, boys love imaginary play.

Confirmity - well, I can't even comment on that bizarre one.

Role playing - I would say individuals respond very differently to role playing, not dependent on sex.

Bluesky, you wrote:
"So efforts were made to swing things in the other direction. Surely everyone accepts that?"
Er, no, they don't. This is another example of the 'everyone knows...' and 'it's obvious that...' type of post I talked about earlier.
As people have posted, the entire educational system has long been dishonestly arranged so that the success of girls was disguised - ie there were more grammar school places for boys than girls, which meant that girls needed a higher pass mark than boys to go to a grammar school, and in turn this mean that bright, academic girls ended up being taught typing and filing (I'm not joking) at a secondary modern and generally being prepared for life as a man's helpmeet, and not so academic boys were sent to the grammar school with the idea that they would go and be the girls' bosses. Remove those artificial disadvantages and of course girls do better.

"I do have a fundamental problem with the assertion that the education system we have at the moment is some dreadful female creature just waiting to emasculate the poor male infants of the UK."

I have come to this thread late but this quote is exactly my view as well.

I want proof, hard proof, rather than women (and it is predominantly women) chattering about a load of anecdotal evidence.

I'm going to try to find evidence as this issue comes up all the time.

Ah yes, boys are awful at role playing. That's why there are no male actors, orators, politicians etc...
As for the ability to express yourself, again yes, of course, that would account for the fact that there are hardly any male orators, philosophers, speechwriters, politicians, novelists and poets.
My son is at primary school right now, and I can tell you the maths is pretty dry, he has sums to do (you know, regular SUMS) which can be done with a number line or a hundred square - no reference to those exclusively female activities of shopping and cooking (because men don't buy anything, do they). He has spellings - this week including array, clay, spray and laugh, amoung others, and has to construct a story with a main character, a problem, events that happen, and a solution. This is based on coursework on a story about monkeys featuring a male main character and some naughty monkeys. They are also doing projects on teh fire of London, which particular emphasis, it seems to me on the six people who rather excitingly died. Please can anyone explain to me precisely where the terrible pro-girl bias is in all this?

Nonappies, in ds1's school there are plenty of articulate, communicative hardworking boys, and many disruptive, lazy girls.

Don't stereotype.

1.) Later school starting age.

agree.

2.) More male teachers esp at primary school

ain't gonna happen

3.) Degendering certain activities vital to academic achievement e.g. reading and competition and physical activity.

how are they gender-biased at the moment?

4.) Involving men more in their children's education.

I think one of the mnost telling things on this whole issue is that women talk on and on about it. I have never heard men discussing it. If I bring it up with men, they are vague and have no real opinion.

5.) Defluffying the primary school classroom and allowing more opportunities for physical activity, kinaesthetic learning, competition, quizzes etc esp. in early years.

Don't know what's happening in england but it's all 'active learning' in scotland. Big buzz word, big push. I agree withteh competition element. Boys do respond more to competition and that should be pushed more. Classrooms I have experienced are not 'fluffy'.

6.) More positive male role models for boys (and girls).

In their own life or in celebrity life? There are loads in celebrity life.

7.) Improving boys attitudes towards masculinity and sexuality so they feel less restricted to certain types of behaviour and less inclined to punish beahviours currently considered not masculine.

Ahhhh! Yes. Quite a few programmes in primary school are trying to do this, which is good. But nearly every area in society pushes a rather restricted attitude towards masculinity. Far outwith the realms of school.

long but absolutely fascinating article looking at the myths about male and female differences especially about language

I do think 'defluffying' is a word that betrays a real albeit subconscious contempt for women/girls.
Competition is a double-edged sword. If girls are doing so well, and boys are alienated by female achievement, surely setting more boys up to fail (as is being suggested would happen) can only increase that alienation?
And studies show that girls can enjoy competition as much as boys. Especially once released from the shackles of expectation not to be 'unfeminine'.

Oh, and this is from the article I linked to above:
Do women really talk more than men?

If we are going to try to generalise about which sex talks more, a reliable way to do it is to observe both sexes in a single interaction, and measure their respective contributions. This cuts out extraneous variables that are likely to affect the amount of talk (like whether someone is spending their day at a Buddhist retreat or a high school reunion), and allows for a comparison of male and female behaviour under the same contextual conditions.
Numerous studies have been done using this approach, and while the results have been mixed, the commonest finding is that men talk more than women.

that was an interesting article, mabanana. Thanks.

yes, I bristled at 'de-fluffying'.

agree with you op

Yes, I think "removing the disadvatages against girls" counts as "efforts to swing things in the other direction. It seems that while "everybody" may not accept it, you do! I think we use different language to describe it, that's all.

I have a different idea about why many boys are failing and seem unable to concentrate, which a lot of people would dismiss out of hand. I'm very interested in other people's ideas though. What I don't understand is those who think it hasn't happened, or that we women (does it make a difference that it's primarily women? not sure why) who are talking about it, are in fact making it up.

What I know is what I see: that my son is bored by a lot of the techniques involved in his education, like projects, and research, but is fascinated by the facts and the dates and the reasons. And I don't see why he should do an art project to illustrate something to do with history or biology. It seems pointless.

Whereas my daughter loves it all and its an aid to her learning and her understanding. Yes she's competitive too, she wants to do the best rainforest poster or whatever.

Maybe, as some one said, separate education is the way to go, girls' schools and boys schools. What do people think of this?

aren't facts, dates and reasons involved in research and projects?

Anecdotally speaking, I find women with one boy and one girl make all sorts of distinctions between their behaviours purely based on the fact that one child is a boy. They take no account of individual strenghts, weaknesses and personality.

I wonder how boys in all boys schols are taught. Are they taught in a very different way to all girls schools?

Bluesky, there used to be plans to actively disadvanage girls in education. There has never been a plan to actively disadvantage boys so, no there was no plan to 'swing things in the other direction'. Do you really think removing active, obvious, illegal discrimination designed to put girls in an inferior position (a totally different pass mark for girls and boys at 11plus) is wrong and unfair to boys? If you believe that then you clearly do assume that boys coming first is the natural and desired order. The biggest change has been that girls are (mostly) no longer seen, and no longer see themselves, as idiots who can't work even their own typewriter (see any vintage advertising or watch Mad Men), but as capable, equal, sentient human beings and this change in expectations has revolutionised their ambitions. I don't really understand who you could dislike "projects, and research" but be "fascinated by the facts and the dates and the reasons" - the way you find out the facts and dates and reasons is by research. It is just teaching children to find things out for themselves. My own son has spent many many hours researching facts, dates and reasons about dinosaurs in books, the internet and at museums!

MrLSG, I was paraphrasing early posts not deliberately stereotyping.

Interesting posts re how much males and females talk. From what I remember men do talk more than women. It´s the old scenario where men command more attention and respect because of their sex. People do not tolerate a woman who talks drivel but have all the time in the world for a man who does. Note also at work that an idea is not "heard" until a man repeats what a woman has said earlier and was not heard at that time.

Don't dismiss anecdotal evidence and then use it.

I would say it's very easy to be fascinated by facts and dates and not want to do some kind of project about them. Maybe you just can't put yourself into someone else's mindset.

He would be happy to be taught them and give them back in an essay or exam. He would know them, testers would know that he knew them, what's wrong with that?

A lot of research off the internet is cutting and pasting, so I wouldn't buy the argument that "doing the research" leads to greater understanding.

Yes, I am familiar with the suppression of women and their achievements. I don't find that kind of comment that helpful, I think it's a bit patronising.

Otherwise it's gripping how many people are really angry and infuriated by (what you would call, I assume) this theory.