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.

Can I just ask something..

As you believe girls have always been way ahead, and they continue to be way ahead, what conclusions do you draw from this?

Surely you would have to make some very gender specific conclusions: such as girls are brighter, or girls work harder, or girls concentrate better. Or maybe that we're just better altogether, I don't know.

Can you continue to believe the sexes are equal if you think girls are only now being allowed to achieve as much as they would have done all along if it hadn't been for the system?

I'm afraid you have a very optimistic view of internet research Frosty.

I agree that the strategy of research needs to be practised, but I don't think it's quite working out the way it ought.

You are quite right - I shouldn't dismiss anecdotal and then use it. But I was referring to something I had noticed amongst friends and not making a statement on the education system.

Internet cutting and pasting would not be accepted in primary or secondary schools. That is not research. We are very clear about what research is.

And I find it quite easy to put myself into someone else's mindset.

I am interested in this issue and I will do some research of my own when time allows. What I find slightly annoying is how many women believe this to be the case and their evidence always seems to be flimsy at least.

I have a few personal opinions re boys not achieving as much re exams. But they are only personal opinions so are of no consequence.

Don't be annoyed.

Do you see then how my son can be fascinated by historical events and yet not want to create artwork or posters around them, just read and learn and reproduce in writing? Doesn't it disadvantage him that points are given for "colouring in" in a subject like history or biology?

how often does he need to create artwork in these subjects?

Posters do not need to include hand-drawn artwork.

As a science teacher I give very little credit for coulouring in. I do give credit for work which shows a good understanding of the subject, and, crucially, the ability to apply that knowledge in a different way. Rather than mere reproduction.

colouring

Yes I do see that Stay Frosty, I absolutely do. Earlier I mused that maybe separate education is the answer, but I don't really know enough about it to propound that with enthusiasm.

It doesn't need to be handdrawn pointy, it's just "art and design". I used "colouring in" a bit glibly there to encompass all of these kinds of projects -- I suppose the integration of subjects. If you're crap at IT, but fabulous at geography, then your Powerpoint homework on earthquakes isn't going to help you show off your strength.

That sounds like all I want to do is sit them and drill them .. I don't, but it's just not all perfect the way it is now.

What I'm really surprised by is that the question has not moved on from "is it happening". I thought the debate would be: what do we do without going back to the bad old days. But really people still don't think it's there. THAT is really interesting to me and makes me want to go back to the studies I've read before (but can't remember -- possibly because I didn't make a poster about them? )

Yes I understand you, but my thinking developed this way because articles I've read have backed up the experience I've had with my children. Maybe I've only read half the story though.

Also, would I have to wait for mabanana to come back to address the issue of whether, if girls would always have done better at school, and now it's just a case of them being allowed to succeed does that mean girls are just better?

Was anyone else saying that or was it just mabanana?

The theory is that boys just mature later - so they would catch up by, I dunno, A levels or university.

Don't know how true that is but I guess it's all you've got left if you accept that a. removing direct discrimination against girls was a good thing b. boys are not innately more stupid than girls.

I think it must be all one has left. It sounds persuasive to me.

Don't get me started on autism -- I'm a vaccination recalcitrant. Testosterone speeding the passage of mercury through the blood brain barrier anyone?

Perhaps leave that one for another time...

my son has severe autism bluesky - what do you mean? I don't understand what you are saying - i too abhore vaccinations but he hasn't had the MMR (his older brother who is ASD free) has had MMR

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have been glib.

This is something I looked into (layman) some time ago. If you are interested I will dig out and post for you.

I'm really really sorry about that, it's to do with mercury being as much to blame as MMR.

I don't want to turn this thread into that and shouldn't have mentioned it. It's just my thing that I'm interested in, and sometimes I should think before I type.

Thats ok. I just didn't get what you were saying thats all. My son is 5 and has mental age of 20 month old but he brings us joy everyday (and lots of heartache too - tears for me this morning when i watched the campaigners on BBC Breakfast news...)Anyway...its all fine

But just to say, I still think there's been a change which has not helped boys. Even though I agree (more now than I did three hours ago) that some of it may be our perception or understanding.

I agree there definitely has been a shift..and yes i thought everyone knew that too (was mentioned earlier) that in the 70's and 80's there was a shift in educational policy to promote girls achievement levels

Agree with your last post edam.

Tbh, I don't see what's so wrong about anecdotal evidence; if the perception is strong enough for some parents to be concerned then I feel there must be a reason for that.

And of course I make some comparisons between my dc - I don't look for it, it's just there!

OK but to get away from previous policy they promoted girls learning at expense of boys just as had previously been done but with girls being the discriminated against.

Asdmum sorry again about the thing and also for your lovely boy

I'm on a roundabout here..

Have re-read your op and some others. You have had a lot of experience in this area and that's worth something. I'm beginning to retrench to my original position.

Am really glad you started this debate.