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.

ASDmum - did you read the Raising Boys' Achievement research that has been posted a few times in this thread?

Are you saying that you are more in the know of a body of research carried out over 4 years, which, by the look of it, approached the research from the presumptions that you make about why there is a gender gap in achievement?

Why are you so adamant that the gap of attainment between boys and girls is not due to socio-cultural reasons? I'm not even that clear on who/what you think is specifically to blame.

If boys and girls have innate differences that are helped or hindered by the current education system, how do you explain how those achieving the top grades are boys and girls? How do those boys manage to bridge the gender gap with the odds so stacked against them?

What does the OP want? Separate schools for boys and girls with boys focusing on maths, sport and woodwork and being assessed in a different way to girls?

Please show me some evidence that shows how boys and girls are born with different brains which lend them towards one particular teaching style.

If there is an innate difference, given that a lot of girls are not achieving a minimum standard of education, what measures would you put in place to rause the attainment level of girls?

You see, your answers to the reason for the gender gap raise a lot of questions and your presumptions do not fit all the questions.

"In an LEA where there is a state girls school and a state boys school in the same catchment the results for the girls will be better although you may well be dealing with brothers and sisters from the same family IYSWIM."

Not in Torquay - and last year (2007 ersults) not in Salisbury. On both cases the boys' grammar school did better than the girls' grammar school. In 2008 the girls' school in Salisbury did better again. However, all 4 schools are way above average (which of course they should be, given they are selective).

I want to know peoples opinions thats all really. Its just something i feel that is underlying in our education system as well as in our society too. Of course teachers expect the same level of behaviour from both sexes - it has nothing to do with expectations of behaviour - its not as transparant as that.

Research could provide details of schools who have satisfactory or good in their OFSTED reports but the schools themselves may have taken a great deal of action to get to this level (ensuring school trips with a broad range of 'difficult' kids on the days inspectors are in etc...)- i don't always believe what i read. The Raising Boys Achievement literature was interesting but it again (as i suppose i do too) only outlines the experiences of a number of schools.

I don't know what the answer is - i don't know what to do about it - i just know that there is a problem with education for boys and its getting worse - yes, today the white working class - then the lower middle class and so on ...who knows - i don't think these boys should be given up on as a 'blip' or a 'small minority' - they are not, abd it is growing. What will happen to the workforce (even thought this is not in my OP) in 20 years time as i have stated - disenfranchised ill educated men...its very sad really. Of course i support girls achievement - i support all achievement - otherwise i wouldn't be a blinking teacher

Asdmum you make a lot of sense and a very reasonable. There's a lot of point-scoring in this debate which you haven't joined in on.

Er -- not that you haven't got points to score fo course but it's plain you are genuinely interested and inquiring, rather than outraged or on a rant or campaign.

.. that is wrong.. I was rushed.. I accept nobody is on a rant ..
but I've always thought that resentment and outrage are bars to open-minded enquiry..

I don't see people opposed to the OP as outraged and resentful. I find them to be much more open-minded than someone who has decided upon a position and won't budge from it at all - even in the face of evidence and research.

Anyway, I have been mulkling over the OP's position as I have been driving about this morning and I'm afraid I am still clueless when she talks about a 'hidden' 'unintentional' bias. I just don't see what teachers and schools would have to gain from such a bias. So, I am (attempting to) bowing out, baffled over what it is - this so-called hidden bias rife amongst schools and teachers.

mulking sounds like much more fun than mulling... Apologies for all my typos.

mulkling sounds more fun than both

I have spent a long time trying to investigate the 11+ scenario, which has interested me greatly. I cannot find any citations. Only assertions, such as the assertion made on the Literacy Trust website, from the DfE.

The one I found had to do with Northern Ireland only (where, for the last three years before it was scrapped, boys performed better than girls).

I was looking for details of how it happened, was it policy or just unwritten practice, when it stopped, was it the 1977 Act which put a stop to it and so on. There's very very little to be found. No -- perhaps there is. But I just can't find it.

There is one example of case law, to do with Birmingham Education Authority. This EA was setting a higher pass mark for girls not to ensure equal numbers but to ensure lower numbers of girls passed. They did not have as many girls places as boys places. Obvious discrimination, but it does not prove that girls were doing better than boys. It means girls doing equally well were being excluded because the places weren't there for them.

Is there more evidence than this that this was going on in other education authorities? It was definitely going on in Northern Ireland ..there, it was a policy. The girls' greater success after equality of opoprtunity was accepted was ascribed to their greater ability in verbal reasoning tests and (as some posters have said) earlier maturity. Boys then "caught up" over the following decade.

If you have links, citations, evidence of this please post. I have problems with information from the DfE press office.

To reply: my school is outstanding, so are the majority of the dept, so we must be getting something right with regards to teaching boys. Two got AQA awards for literature for being amongst the top 5 in the country. So teaching a concentration of boys, we're quite well placed to make generalisations, even light-hearted ones about teaching Austen and Winterson. And as my post clearly stated, yes there are differences, but the biggest mitigating factor is not gender but the quality of the teaching and attitudes to learning.

I have found some comments regarding teachers and teaching on here as enlightening in terms of the regard that people hold for the profession.

Heated I know where you are coming from

My dear ASD, it's not me accusing teachers of bias (unforgiveably conscious or unprofessionally unconscious) or stating that any problem with a small minority of boys is caused by their education, so I would say I hold teachers in higher esteem than you appear to. I think I also hold boys in higher esteem, as I don't think they need a special curriculum especially tailored to running about, rebellion etc to succeed.

Hi mabanana any more links..

I don't believe this either mabanana re boys needing to run about and a curriculum to support this - not one bit and have never stated that.

How can something that is unconscious be unprofessional - how can something that is unconscious be anything really??....sorry don't understand that.

I have th highest regard for my profession and wish that society would value us a little more and not deem to patronise us with simplified explanations and sarcastic remarks.

I hold boys in very high esteem too - of course there are very very many capable boys and boys should be as capable of achieving to the same level as girls - but a large minority aren't ...why????? Thats what i seek to address in the OP (ok it may have been badly worded for such a literary giant as yourself) You obviously do not understand where i am coming from and what my concerns are - i have stated them in repeatedly but yet they are obviously not being made clear

It's not just the working class boys who are underachieving. I heard on Radio 4 a while back that there is something like a 30% greater chance of a September born girl attending Oxbridge than an August born boy. If girls and boys are roughly equal, then the fault must lie somewhere in the education system. For example, if girls both mature earlier than boys and are better at coursework in GCSEs, and then university admissions tutors rely on these GCSE results when giving places (not sure if this is still how it works), then clearly there might be a built in disadvantage for boys particularly the younger ones.

Rose, that doesn't mean there is a 30per cent gap between girls and boys. There is a gap between the achievement of a girl born in sept and a girl born in august, simply because the August born girl is doing all her exams a year younger than the Sept born girl. Being Sept born is, on average, an advantage for girls AND boys. I see no evidence at all that girls excel at coursework rather than exams or vice versa.
It would be unprofessional to have an unconcscious bias, as part of your training as a teacher would be to look at prejudice and work to eradicate it. You should be careful as a teacher to examine your practise to ensure that your teaching is appropriate for all children in your classroom, and that you aren't acting in a biased way. And I have to say, none of my ds's teachers are biased towards girls or boys. Perhaps they are just better teachers?
Some boys are failing at school, yes, but that is NOT IMO anything to do with these 'fluffy' female teachers or all this 'fluffy' reading and discussion. As I have repeatedly said, that the underclass of boys is much more likely to be linked to social problems such as fathers running out on families and a lad culture and a gangster culture. Which does not come from schools at all. It is ridiculous to say that if some boys do not achieve their potential then that must be the fault of schools and teachers. It's like blaming schools for boys committing more crimes.

Latest figures from The Youth Justice Board says girls committed 59,000 offences in 2006-07. The total number of offences by those aged between 10 and 17 which led to police or court action was just over 295,000.
Do you not think the boys committing more than two hundred thousand crimes might also be underachieving at school?

It's a case of chicken and egg.

Am I right in thinking that your point is that the societal problems that shape the crime figures, also figure significantly boys' "underachievement" (still not sure if you are one of the ones that think it doesn't really exist) ?

But maybe the egg came first. Maybe they fall into delinquency because they are not engaged by their education.

Yes, that will be it. The fact that they live on terrible gang ridden estates, where there is open drug dealing, have no father, live chaotic lives, come from families where nobody respects or is interested in education, and where nobody works will be much less important than the fact that the home corner isn't a garage/they are expected to do projects/their teacher is female.
I give up.

No don't give up. Give me the link. It's such a central plank of your philosophy, that boys were always doing badly anyway, and I'd like to have the evidence if you've got it.

You clearly haven't read any of my posts. I have repeatedly suggested that if there is a gap then it is much more likely to be caused by societal problems which lead to a small underclass of boys than these woolly, unsubstantiated claims about a biased curriculum and teachers.

You have seen links. I don't honestly know what you are talking about. Show ME a link to prove that female teachers lead to boys doing worse! Show me a link that shows that boys cannot do independent research, or that the changes in the curriculum were designed to promote female achievement at the expense of that of boys. Because I keep hearing this, with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

'There have been a ton of comments on this thread saying education is sexist because:
There are too many female teachers'

HOW MANY TIMES CAN YOU IGNORE WHAT IS BEING SAID AND REPEAT YOUR OWN WEIRD AGENDA??

THERE ARE NOT TOO MANY FEMALE TEACHERS. THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH MALE TEACHERS.

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH WOMEN MPS.
TO SAY THAT DOES NOT MAKE ME A MAN HATER OR MEAN THAT I AM BLAMING THE MALE MPS FOR THE PROBLEM.

WHAT EXACTLY IS WRONG WITH WANTING BOTH GENDERS TO BE REPRESENTED IN AS MANY ENVIRONMENTS AS POSSIBLE?

And it's not just about 'achievement' in the sense of SATS scores. It must be almost impossible to measure the impact of having entirely or mostly (only 17% male teachers I believe) female teachers on boys AND GIRLS in the moment and in the future.

However, it doesn't take a genius to work out that it must send a powerful message to both boys and girls that education esp. at primary level is for women.

'Female teachers create fluffy' classrooms with 'too many pastel colours' which apparently harm boys.'

Nobody is sayin this either. There are SOME classrooms especially in primary school which are particularly 'feminine'. Yours may not be -hooray! But my dcs' is.

It is not that this 'harms boys' it is just that it reinforces gender stereotypes and can be particularly offputting for boys just as I would find it offputting to work in an environment almost totally dominated by men and overtly masculine.

I could continue but then again you're not listening to what I'm saying are you?? You're continuing to come up with wild generalisations and make assumptions about what others are saying.

I have read your posts and you've said the gap was always there as evidenced by this discrimination in the past and it's to do with societal expectations. I do understand that you think it's outside the classroom but I do disagree that there's no substance to the claims that teaching methods have an effect too.

Because this turnaround happened when the methodology was reformed. So you have to persuade me it's a coincidence. Well you don't have to but you know. I'm guessing you want to persuade somebody.

And you say -- ah, but boys were always underperforming, those changes just brought it to light. And your evidence for that is the 11+ quotas. And your evidence for that is a statement from the DfE. And I am just saying, do you have anything more than that because a vague statement from the DfE doesn't do it for me.

I have looked, really hard.

I am not denying there was discrimination in the past btw. I just would like stronger evidence of this claim which has been quoted again and again.