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.

And I am dismayed by the number of teachers you chat to, asdmum, who blithely say 'oh yes, that is true, boys are disadvantaged' without bringing any robust research to your attention as evidence.

But all the studies say different things MI.

I'll read into that, that you put it down to gender prejudice and expectations outside the classroom, divorced entirely from classroom systems.

I would disagree with that, because the changes and the results seem to have coincided too dramatically. And in many extremely manly boys in private schools seem to do awfully well despite your gender prejudice that studious = "gay". One of the differences there, is that at primary very often they don't follow the National Curriculum, or only very distantly, until they absolutely have to.

Also many, many teachers seem to believe in this phenomenon -- often parents of girls, who have no axe to grind.

I don't blame girls. I don't think they achieve only because they're allowed to. I just think we obviously don't have a system that brings the best out of both.

It's not my gender prejudice, I was quoting fivecandles, actually, see above.

I was citing the meta-studies HS dug up, which looked AFAIK at the research to date in total.

Asd, I for one completely understand that often complete conversations can take place without one party demanding robust research to be brought to their attention and withdrawing in dismay if it's not available.

I don't know any blokes who think reading is specifically gay. In fact most of the men I know seem to have struggled bravely with the education system and triumphed, including the August-born father of my children. (Jeezlouise, half the time on MN I'm surprised Mr Inferior's literate, frankly.)

As previously stated, research shows that working class boys do worse. This might scupper your assumption about private all boys schools.

But is that what you think? Please I am begging you. Is that what you think? That it's nothing to do with what goes on in the classroom?

Do you not think it's a grey area at all? Are you not even interested in the possibility, or has that interest been smothered by your resentment?

They are all teachers, bluesky! They are all agreeing that they are working within and supporting an education system that is biased against boys. Teachers are meant to be able to back up their classroom practice with research.

I've said it above. The issue seems to be how we - as a society - convince boys that learning is not UnManly and that education is quite interesting and useful?

Changing education methods does not seem to have worked. And actually I would personally be very unhappy with rooting out all the elements of the curriculum that are perceived as 'feminine' (according to a post from asdmum above, those include having Pride and Prejudice and Romeo and Juliet on the curriculum) in order to butchify it up. A great loss, I think, and one which would only increase the gulf between men and women.

Yes pointy, but I have a position. It is that changes to teaching methodology have influenced how well boys and girls achieve academically.

I do not know what your position is, or MI's. Is it the classroom, is it the curriculum, is it bank balance, is it societal expectations, is it all of these, what is it.

The main plank of your position seems to be that you are angry because the achievements of girls are undermined by the assertion that "changes to teaching methodology have influenced how well boys and girls achieve academically".

On what you think the cause is, there seems to be some confusion. There's even talk of homophobia and I don't know what. It's like you're all very angry about something you definitely know that but beyond that -- I don't understand your position and it's like you won't put it down.

Hello am back

Ok x posted MI let me read

Teachers teach their subject to enthuse and engage pupils - not bloody carry out a market research test...what is education coming to if its all about blinking quantative measurement

I am not going to go back and cut and paste mi's perfectly clear thoughts on this.

In the absence of sound research to the contrary, i agree with her.

I think in the end some of us will have to agree to disagree

No, it's not my main plank. And do go and read the full thread and see what FC says about reading being thought of as 'gay', dammit. I wasn't the one who said it.

The implicit undermining does annoy me, madly, but actually my main quarrel is with this absurd insistence that Boys Do Things Differently.

My education taught me that rigorous analysis was quite important, actually.

Who mentioned carrying out a market research test?

If I thought that boys were disadvantgaed in the classroom, I would be finding out what research had already been carried out in this area and I would be looking for any recommendations re what I could do myself in my own classroom. I would also be raising any concerns with my colleagues/SMT.

Right, got it, it's all society and nothing to do with the classroom.

But "changing methods does not seem to have worked" -- at what? at convincing boys that learning is not unmanly?

but

they weren't aimed at that were they?

Pointy seems to indicate part of the solution is bank balance.

I advocate traditional methods for some boys: half a day of sit still and be pushed, half a day of slogging around a running track, no girls in sight, boys dressing up as Juliet in the school play, all of that.

God knows why, it just seems to work for some boys. I have to say, I would have more faith in asdmum or fivecandles putting me right on that, as they seem to have more insight into the issue.

lol

Teachers are meant to be able to back up their classroom practice with research.

ok maybe not market research but since when does teaching in a day to day capacity have anything to do with research - we aim to do all those things as stated before - to watch our pupils develop a love and a passion for our subject, to question and value it.

I am talking about practical day to day teaching not hypothetical theory

Of course we research whilst doing our training and we have INSET to develop learning and behavioural strategies but our research in post is most likely to be pupil specific into new A level and GCSE syllabi, new Schemes of Work etc etc

I've been lurking on this thread and have to say that Motherinferior has it spot on and I also agree with posts by edam, mabana and pointy.
Perhaps 'the elephant in the room' is that average girls are actually more able academically than average boys. Is that impossible to believe? Perhaps a wider range of non-academic subjects were on offer to 'average' boys then they might perform better. Perhaps it is the core subjects which are the issue rather than teaching styles etc.

And whilst I don't want to glibly say 'so what' I have to think to myself that with the pay gap still very much evident and the glass ceiling still in existence that girls need a head start.

Maybe i am living in Utopia but i just want equality for both sexes

In Scotland, there has been a big emphasis on updating yourself with current research over the last 10 yeasr or so and (as advised by our ofsted equivalent) being able to justify everything you do in the classroom.

One of our standards for registration focuses on tranlsating research and theory into good classroom practice.