Article in The Economist about gender gap in education

[camaleon]

The article is here http:econ.st/1DYCQxm
Basically girls are outperforming boys in education. The explanation provided in the article seems to suggest that schools are favouring girls. No mention to the possibility of this being a reflection of universalisation of education and the results of girls participating in an even playing field.

One of the jewels of the article:"That should worry women, too: in the past they have typically married men in their own social group or above. If there are too few of those, many women will have to marry down or not at all"

Buffy - it's because a teacher standing in front of a class suits boys better, there's no issue with impulse control if everyone is engaged in solo work silently, there's nothing to distract them and boys have more confidence to put their hand up to ask questions if they're unsure.

In that environment girls don't get the help they need if they're unsure about something and boys dominate teacher time.

With more collaborative teaching methods they're expected to stay on task while also working with other pupils...girls do that better (even by school starting age) so if they're unsure of something they may get help from their partner or group and in addition to that they're more likely to ask for teacher time because they gain confidence from the other pupils or they know that they aren't alone in being stuck on something.

With more interactive learning, that also provides boys with more distractions.

It's not just that classroom environments have changed, but it is part of it that even at 5 boys have been socialised to be louder, more active and to be more self directed than girls...and that girls have been socialised to be quieter, less demanding of attention and sit and do 'girly' activities.

Oh that is absolutely an essentialist explanation of it...in real life situations it is much more that statistically girls tend to be more...and boys tend to be...rather than they just are, but that takes longer to write, lol.

I do think it's a huge huge issue that there seem to be 'girls' subjects' and 'boys' subjects' at higher levels of education.

But primary education is hugely important (I mean apart from the obvious it's where they learn the basics bit) as by secondary school the pupil's own idea of their ability is what often dictates how they perform and that is determined by what happens at primary school.

I think you're right that suddenly as it's become boys under performing it's become more important - but, personally I don't want any group of children to be in an education system which seems to be failing them...whether that's boys at primary or girls in some subjects at secondary or FE.

And yet, in the 50s, didn't boys 'outperform' girls?

IIRC that was when they marked girls down because they were doing too well on the 11+ and subsequently taking up too many grammar school places.

Buffy you are right. If girls do well, especially at a technical subject, I tend to think it's because she's a hard worker but for a boy I would assume he's innately clever. As much as I hate those stereotypes I can't stop them popping into my head!

But you are aware of those stereotypes; it's more of a problem when you make such assumptions without ever questioning them.. - and a lot of people do do that.

IIRC that was when they marked girls down because they were doing too well on the 11+ and subsequently taking up too many grammar school places.

As someone who took the 11+ in the 50s I can confirm Messy that girls did have to get a higher mark to pass than boys so that a roughly 50/50 ratio prevailed in grammar schools - otherwise the girls would have outnumbered the boys.

Interesting isn't it that girls got higher marks in the "sudden death" (no coursework) 11+ in the 1950s when the current view is that boys do better at sudden death exams while girls do better at coursework.

Who is fooling whom about what boys and girls are more suited to, I ask?

I've taught in two nearly identical schools, except that one was all boys and one all girls (both state grammar schools). What I've found (totally anecdotal, so no actual evidence), is that the girls tended to take study more seriously than boys at GCSE (on average). At a level, the boys start to catch up, but it's not until yr13 that both groups seem to take study equally seriously (usually not until uni applications went in). By 'taking study seriously', I mean recognising that school is important if they want career prospects and/or university, working hard throughout lessons without much reminding to stay on task, completing homework and revision on time and to a high standard, being organised (ie remembering to bring exercise books, textbooks, pens to lessons).

Obviously there were examples of very studious boys and girls who didn't do any work, this is all just on average.

It could also be that this is just what is expected for them by their teachers. Girls are expected to be organised, and boys expected to mess about.

And here we have girls under performing compared to boys.

Messy that sounds about right. At school I was always top of the class but was always called 'conscientious' whereas the boy who was second in the class was universally recognised as 'clever'

Thankfully revenge is a dish best served cold, I have a much better career than he does. not bitter and twisted at all

I've worked as a (group and individual) tutor for nearly 20 years and one point that keeps cropping up among the boys I've taught (15-17 yo) is the idea that education and academic achievement are somehow "unmanly". My kids usually tend to be from immigrant backgrounds so I'm not sure how widespread this view is in the white dominant culture, but would be interested to hear if anyone else has noticed the same. Because remarks like "I'm not learning French, that's gay" would go a long way in explaining why these boys intentionally underperform in school. In other words: the patriarchy - it hurts men too (no shit).