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.

Ok, let's keep this really simple and easy. If it's possible that boys are so different that they require totally different teaching methods, why can it not also be possible that they are, on average, less intelligent? I have never argued that they are, as it happens, but then I don't think they are as different to girls as some do.

Yes, that's the information word for word on the Literacy Trust site MI pointed me too. I found quite a lot of that when I was looking, but I actually wanted names numbers and pack drill. Anyway, got it now, but thanks.

Yes I do, mabanana, I think it's because your sentences are often full of sub-clauses and you don't paragraph with gaps.

As I said, I don't understand why you don't associate this with educational reform (quite apart from the 11+ quota). Particularly when a source you've both quoted does just that. Perhaps you believe it is a coincidence. That is possible of course.

The disparity seemed, in reality, to exist long before these so-awful educational changes. In the past the achievements of women were masked by limited access to education , then by limited access to good education, and all the time by low expectations and barriers to professional achievement which reduced female ambition. It is shocking how recent the lower passmarks for boys were. 1990! We are only one full school generation on from this, and look how well girls have done.

I think you might be asking the wrong person. I haven't been vociferous on this subject. I'm asking whether other people believe this to be true because their arguments seem to be leading this way.

But if that is where my argument was leading me, I would draw back and steer down a different road. I would assume my argument must be flawed somewhere.

Why? Because you only ever find or don't find what you test for. The results of the tests are shaped by the nature of the tests. The exams, the coursework, the verbal and non-verbal reasoning, whatever. And of course intellectual ability changes over a lifetime and so on and so forth. You know all this.

"Why can it not also bee possible that they are on average less intelligent?"

I suppose it can be. But it's not the obvious conclusion you jump too. If there were racial tests and one group came out worse, the initial and one hopes final assumption would be that they had had a poorer education, not that they were less intelligent.

I think your question is a bit redundant. It's only really relevant where no cause is ascribed to the underachievement of boys -- so it's up to you to answer it, because I have my reasons.

bee duh

I have to go. This is very interesting but I'm a bit tired.

It's not my conclusion. I have offered various suggestions re issues in families and society that seem to be more likely causes of a small underclass of failing working class boys. We know that male teachers don't raise boy's achievement, and that discussion about reading helps, so that's those issues out of the window. I am also irritated by the emphasis on drawing and colouring in and making posters, but I doubt this is the cause of a small number of boys failing in schools.
All I am saying is that I don't think boys and girls need different educations, because they aren't that different. And that the posters who argue that that are totally different are the ones who are most shocked by any suggestion that boys might be less intelligent. Which doesn't make sense to me.

Mabanana please do not seek to patronise. I find those comments uncomfortable and difficult to read (and btw i don't mean literally)

'the current problem is the result of an 'overfeminised' approach'

A drastic misinterpretation of what's being said. The fact that primary education in particular is almost entirely taught by women in some cases in overtly feminine environments with a clear emphasis on the touchy, feely and obvious disapproval of boisterous and physical behaviour may be ONE contributory factor that discourages SOME boys from learning just as the fact that physics, maths and engineering are still taught and studied mostly by men and certainly were don't know if still are in environments that were often perceived as hostile to women and girls.

I don't really see how it's any more controversial to say that the make up of primary school teachers should reflect the make up of their students in terms of gender and also ethnicty etc etc than it is to say that law, the police force, secondary school headteachers should likewise reflect the population as a whole in terms of representing women.

I would not want to work in an environment where all of my colleagues or bosses were men. Why is that considered unreasonable.

I find it bizarre that wanting both genders to be represented as equally possible is considered somehow antifeminist or antiwomen or antiteachers especially given I am a woman and a teacher as is asd.

Is my saying I would like more women in law or car mechanics somehow showing contempt for men??

'You've repeatedly said that the system favours girls over boys.'

But it DOES. There is evidence for this. That's what we're talking about isn't it. The 10% gap between the achievement of boys and girls at GCSE which masks bigger differnces in some subjects like English. And the fact that boys and specifically white, working class boys are more likely to leave school withotu any qualifications than any other group.

What more evidence do you want.

Why are some of you continuing to ignore this or suggest it doesn't matter??

Now what we should be focusing on is WHY is this happening and what we should do to remedy it. That IS what I am debating and why asd raised the OP as I understand it.

Now whether the bias against boys' achievement is caused society or in families or in the classroom or in the media or with the assessment system or some combination of some or all of these factors is up for debate but there clearly IS a bias in that boys ARE doing worse.

Absolutely FC - you articulate my thoughts much better than me. As i said - i could write a song about it tho!

'Perhaps 'the elephant in the room' is that average girls are actually more able academically than average boys'

If you read the link I posted earlier - I'll have to find it again - it says that in tests of IQ there is very little difference between boys and girls so it is not that girls are somehow naturally more able than boys it has to be the system of education or assessment or attitudes. That's the issue for debate - why don't boys who are intellectually equal to girls achieve equal results??

But bias can not only be unconscious but unforseen as with coursework. Boys performance started to drop most considerably with the introduction of coursework. No one could have foreseen this.

I know of a lesson which is widely used across the country and for INSET which makes use of marshallows (something about delayed gratification blah, blah). Marshmallows contain gelatine and therefore Muslims, vegeterians and Jews may choose not to eat them. So that particular lesson is biased against all of those groups. The experiment doesn't work if you can't eat the bloody marshmallows on principle. I bet most of the teachers who use this lesson have no idea that this lesson is biased. I don't think that makes them bad teachers or bad people but perhaps a bit more awareness needs to be raised? This is what I mean when I saw talking about blame and cricism is not helpful. It gets in the way of constructive debate and change.

'which really leaves us with the possible and to me plausible suggestion that it is influences in wider society (fathers who run away from family life, pornography and guns held up as the ideal lifestyle, the idolisation of footballers as the perfect male role models etc) which may be at the root of any underachievement by boys. And these, clearly are not caused by female teachers or their fluffy classrooms, or by continuous assessment or home corners in reception classrooms. '

Now, I completely agree with you about all of this stuff about footballers and pornography etc etc but don't you see that the fact that majority of teachers in primary school are women and the fact that some of them create very femiine classrooms and the rocket sticers for boys and pricness stickers for girls etce etc is all part of the same gender stereotyping which may be partly responsible for boys not valuing academic learning. If a young boy sees that all his teachers are women this is going to send out a fairly powerful message that teaching (and possibly learning) is a female thing etc etc.

Once again, this is not about blame or fault. It is not that female teachers are doing anything wrong or are wrong but it does mean that schools uninentionally, unconsciously are perpetuating gender stereotpes which is a contributing factor to some boys underachieving.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3177356.stm

This is interesting. Boys more likely to take up English if they go to an all boys school possibly because they don't want to look silly in front of girls and possibly because of the gender of their teachers.

Back to one of my earlier points. It's not that subjects are inherently male or female but attitudes and role models and environments do matter and schools and teachers however unconsciously or unintentioanlly do contribute to these.

Fivecandles I raised the 'elephant' thing and by 'academically more able'I meant just that; I did not mean that they had higher IQ's as this isn't the same thing really. I am not an educationalist so am probably using the wrong jargon. All I am getting at is that the average girls might always outperform the average boys. I agree with those who advocate that much of this is down to societal causes rather than educational style. I also agree with those who point out that some boys mature later. Is the logical conclusion to that to have girls and boys start school at 5 and 6 respectively? Take GCSE's at 16 and 17 ? I'm not necessarily advocating this but certainly can see that it is not an easy to solve issue.

I just don't feel that it's ok for us to accept that some students are not going to achieve their potential just because of their gender (whether boys or girls). Boys and girls of the same IQ/ ability should be achieving the same results and it's our job as teachers to do what we can to ensure that they do just as much as it's our job to ensure that those with different ethnicities or social class or disabilities also achieve their potential. I don't understand how some people can just accept the disparity and refuse to acknowlege that schools and teachers have any responsibility for it. I don't buy the thing about maturity. Women get more first class degrees at university when they are 21+ is that because boys STILL haven't matured?? At what point do they mature then?

So is there also the view that university education is biased in girls' favour - or have I misunderstood that point.
I admit I have not read any of the links on the statistics but is it the case that boys are doing any worse than they ever used to? Forget the issue of whether girls outperform boys - is the real comparison not whether boys are now performing at a lower level than they did 20 years ago ?

Fivecandles, I am sure no-one is saying it's ok to accept underachievement - just that appropriating it to gender may be misguided.

Boys and girls largely are achieving the same results. It's surely never going to be 50/50? I am more worried that so many children are underachieving. Fivecandles, I think some of your solutions may help boys and girls but it is ridiculous to implement so many changes for boys (if in fact they are so different) when almost the same amount of girls are underachieving too. How is that fair? FWIW I think smaller classrooms, more planning time (so teachers can plan for the diffreing needs of the children - not genders - in the classroom) and abolishment of pointless testing (eg 'SATS') would help everybody.

Could be that...but why? Is it to do with what i asked in the the OP?.....its a toughie

UmMwahahahaaaaa i agree with your last points totally... i would also scrap coursework in the post 1987 current GCSE format as we have said parents do it, teachers do it, the internet does it...its pointless... i would love to see more men in classroom (at primary level)as i truly believe and have seen the heads lifting up of all the boys in my sons class now that they have a male teacher for the first time (in year 5).

I would love to know actually as an aside the stats on the ratio of boys/girls on School Action at primary level(AEN). I know its only one class so not a great stat but in my sons class its 10 boys to 2 girls (aged 9/10)

I don't think it is at all helpful to trivialise the disparity. A 10% gap is huge (and bigger in some subjects). There are significant numbers of boys leaving school with no qualifications. This is at GCSE but there is also a gap earlier down the school and later at university. It's not good enough to say twas ever thus either. What kind of argument is that? That wouldn't wash if we were talking about girls or black students.

My point about the disparity at university was in response to the idea that boys haven't 'matured' at GCSE stage. I don't think that works since they apparently still haven't matured at 21+ if we're going to use that to explain away the disparity between male and female academic performance.

Oh god, don't get me started on supposed black boys underachievement... Many black boys achieve as expected. It is poor black boys that don't (just like white boys).

I am not saying, don't tackle underachievement, just don't attribute it to gender. It is way more complex than slinging a few male teachers in, and painting the classroom blue.

Too many commas, sorry. Am not as articulate as I would like, I blame the boys (well, the one. My 3 mth old ).

Generalising massively here, but boys are very grade-driven and competitive & they like lessons which feature this. They only notice what you've written on the work if it's witty, wrong or provocative. They don't take pleasure in crafting a beautiful piece of written work, but write concisely and to the point - examiners need to recognise that as a skill. At A level I can give them Oranges are Not the Only Fruit to read , but I'd be hitting my head against a brick wall if I gave them Pride and Prejudice at GCSE.

Studies show that girls do better in single sex maths lessons, but boys do better in maths lessons with girls present. In 'feminine' subjects boys do better in single sex groups.

I teach only boys (lazy but bright a speciality) but have taught only girls & co-ed as well, and yes imo students can benefit from teaching that's adapted for gender, but way above this as a influencing factor is just simple good teaching and them having the right attitude to learning, which is usually engendered through the home.