Boys are better at physics then girls ...

[SmellsLikeTeenStrop]

according to dd1s science teacher.

I was at her parents evening last night and we were discussing why in some modules dd1 does brilliantly and in others she does adequately. It just so happened that in the module she scored most highly was a biology one and from that he said ''this might sound a little bit sexist but girls are better at biology, and boys do better at the physics side of things''.

No you arsehole, that was a lot sexist - I didn't say that but I thought it but I did point out to him that there is a lot of cultural conditioning which pushes girls towards biology while trying to dissuade them from doing anything mathematical and physics related. He then quickly changed the subject.

I'm really tempted to speak to the head about this, would that be an over-reaction?

I am glad you responded because you have made me aware of things that I needed to be aware of.

Thanks for the ideas, I have every intention of sending that letter out requesting further information, time and tenacity are not a problem for me.

Fake ETA: That thank you extends to everyone.

Use Himalaya's excellent pointers from her post of 11:00:24 when you communicate with the school.

gaaghhh -- because clearly there is one staff member who does not subscribe to the school's alleged philosophy.

Please read this www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics/review/file_41599.pdf the summary of a research program initiated by the Institute of Physics who I work for. One of the declared aims of the IOP, the learned society in the UK for the promotion and support of physics and physicists, is to increase the number of girls taking physics post-16. This research and the teaching strategies that can be used to interest girls in physics "An action plan for teachers" (www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics/action/file_41603.pdf) have been sent to all science departments in the country, there are also two videos available online from IOP for teacher training on this subject "Saving Nellie" and "Key Stage 3/4 science: girls in physics" www.iop.org/resources/videos/education/girls-in-the-physics-classroom/page_43430.html. You may want to direct the teacher concerned to this or suggest he contacts the IOP to attend a training course on how to interest girls in his lessons as their lack of interest is a result of his actions not their innate inability.

I have a degree and PhD in physics, worked as a physics teacher for 7 years and now work for IOP training chemistry and biology teachers to teach physics. What the research shows is that the way physics is taught in schools favours the traditional interests and learning styles of teenage boys. The examples used in lessons are all planes, trains and cars. As the most mathematical of the sciences with equations introduced earlier and used more frequently than in biology and chemistry, teachers often fall back on sticking the formula on the board, talking about the symbols and setting practice questions which girls find a huge turn off.

Girls have to be hooked on physics before year 9 if they are to withstand the peer pressure to ditch masculine subjects that massively increases the older they get. There are very few real physicists in schools teaching the subject, very often it is taught even at A Level by chemists, materials scientists, geologists, engineers etc who have big gaps in their physics knowledge. As a result lesson across the board in physics are more out of a textbook and less discursive, adventurous or interesting. In comparison there are too many graduates in biology applying for teaching posts.

Incidentally while it is true that more boys choose physics they do not perform better as a group in the overall distribution of grades at A Level, they are not "better".

Thanks MAmalamoo - really interesting and great work!

I did write a post but was ranting about non-physicist's teaching physics. Not that I would ever become a teacher too much hard work. Although... I am thinking of getting out of academia.

I was shit at physics but great at biology (and chemistry), but I think that's just me rather than my gender.

DD is starting an all-girls' secondary in September, will be interedting to see how that works out on the science front - and she is really interested in science (though particularly chemistry).

OP, best of luck and well done for standing up to the teacher. (That sounds patronising and I don't mean it that way.)

SLTS One thing I think you should mention either in your follow up conversation or in some other way is that your original question about why your daughter isn't doing as well in some modules as others has not actually been addressed.

Helping the school be less sexist in its physics teaching over all is a great goal that I think is well worth pursuing but you also still have the issue of your daughter maximising her potential. Please don't drop that side of it while you encourage them to look at things more broadly. Also, requiring the science teacher to actually think about your daughter in individual terms might be the start of him thinking about the potential of other girls in a more individual manner.

Without wishing to get flamed, perhaps it's possible that the teacher was taking his lead from A-level results, which show precisely the pattern he mentioned. Is it 'sexist' to point that out?

The key to physics is maths- if your child is good at maths they will potentially do well at physics, but otherwise they will always struggle with it. Biology is completely different, much more qualitative.

But Cheeznbread, boys don't do better at A level Physics, girls do.

so yes of course it is sexist to say boys do better!!!!!!!

Chezenbread - It is sexist to expect or accept worse performance of an individual simply because they happen to share a characteristic with a group that on average does not perform so well (even were it true that girls do worse at A level).

SybilBeddows, you're quite right, I read the table the wrong way around. I suppose that means we ought to adjust teaching to appeal to boys now ;-)

This won't stand up statistically, but we started the Cambridge degree course with roughly equal proportions of the sexes. By the final year, the physics group had 10 girls to 120 boys*. Of those 10, 5 of us were from the same all-women's college, with women tutors (usually dauntingly intellectual types working at CERN and peering at the world through curtains of hair).

Are the girls in a minority in the sciences at your DD's school? It makes a big difference.

*I don't think any of us were mature enough to be called men and women...

The fact that most boys find it hard to aim their pee into the toilet bowl suggests they may not be as good at physics as is thought

What Suchprospects said.

not an over-reaction

I think you were totally right to complain. There is far too much of this type of daft sexist comment in schools.

It always annoys me when intervention is put in place to support underachieving boys while girls in the same situation are written off, as bimbos or because some deluded male thinks they will just leave and get pregnant.

Equally, I refuse to make my (English) lessons 'boy friendly' - I try to make sure I cover a wide range of texts, whether or not they are deemed by some to be 'suitable' for boys - it's patronising to all involved. An interesting text or good book is just that - why should gender make a difference. The exam boards often skew their exams towards boys anyway. I firmly believe that almost all gender differences between pupils in subjects is down to the teacher, past or present.

Chanting - what do you think of Mamalamoo's approach to making Physics more girl friendly in their teaching styles, examples and subject matter? Seems like a good idea to me.

Equally it seems like a good idea to teach a mix of English Lit books with male and female lead characters in English, since kids tend to be drawn more easily to characters they relate to. Same reason I suppose they tend to focus on the books with young protagonists.

If your data showed that any group of kids were underachieving isn't it what a school should do to think about it's teaching methods in relation to that group and target interventions?

Absolute snarl at this...

This is timely - DH is a physics teacher at a co-ed public school where all the sciences are taught separately from the get-go. Today was parents' day and apparently he had several girls' parents say that they hated physics until they had him as a teacher, and could they please be taught by him again next year. I know the A-level class makeup is fairly dismal at the school (think about 20% of them are girls) and I tend to badger him quite a bit about what the department is doing to turn girls onto the subject. So the wife and the feminist in me are both quite proud today and pleased today :)

Bue - I thought you meant 'taught seperately' girls and boys and then realised you meant biology, chemistry and physics taught seperately.

Himalaya, Mammalamoo's ideas sound really interesting and it makes sense to review teaching to make sure that we don't just keep doing the same things, especially if there is evidence that it is not working for all pupils.

It sometimes seems that a lot of education focuses on the underachievement of boys by trying to appeal to their interests at the expense of the girls - we've certainly seen it in the subject matter in the English exams. When I have analysed results, for many of those who don't do well, the main issues are external to the lessons.

In school, I try to target intervention for those in most need of support regardless of gender - it seems to be working as there is almost no gender difference in achievement over the last couple of years.

I was thinking more about the nationally identified groups and the money, research and resources that seemed to go into that. A few years ago I went on a local authority course that showed various underachieving groups (I can't remember if it was just for English) - the bottom two were white, working class boys and white, working class girls. Even though there was only 1% difference between the groups there were no support materials for raising girls' achievement. That really struck me as wrong.

(Chanting, a similar phenomenon was identified in NI, but with a twist -- working class Protestant boys and girls did significantly worse than working class Catholic boys and girls. Will try to find the article...)