Sexism in primary school

[Mousing]

I'm a primary school teacher. Today I had a really difficult conversation with one of the senior leadership team which I think was really sexist. I'm not sure what I should have done or what I should do tomorrow.
There are 4 people in the SLT and two of them are very supportive of play-based learning and the other two are much more interested in getting results even if the children have a worse experience of school. As my class have SATs very soon we have been doing quite a lot of practice in the last few weeks because I am under a lot of pressure to get them to the right levels and exam technique does make a difference. I don't like teachinglike this but it's the system we're in and I would be disadvantaging my class and my school if I didn't prepare them for their SATs.
Today one of the play-based-learning supporters on the SLT told my that the boys in my class need to be doing more outdoor activities and that it's not fair to expect them to focus this hard all morning without a break. She has now set up a timetable for children to go outside to play in the afternoons. Every child gets at least one turn per week but several children get 2 turns. All of the children who get 2 turns are boys. This is a class where 65% of the children are girls. She has also set up a trip to the building site behind the school for 6 children from my class and she has picked all boys. The boys in the class are very badly behaved and they do take up a lot of the SLT's time dealing with it, so I can see that they probably think this is a solution to that problem, but it feels really unfair to me. The girls are generally cooperative and because of that they get fewer fun activities and it is just assumed that they'll be happy doing SATs papers.
What should I do? The teacher who set this up is senior to me so I can't really change her plan but I'm not happy with it.

The way in which students are graded (low-pressure) is a major part contributor to the difference. It's like that cartoon saying you shouldn't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree.

Girls tend to do better with coursework whereas boys do better in high-pressure examinations.

Curriculums are also changing. Boys usually do better when understanding of concepts can be applied to numerous situations (Physics) but girls do better where a thinner but wider-spread of knowledge is beneficial (Biology).

Personally (and I've spent nearly 2/3 of my life being an educator of some sort), I think that a lack of structure and discipline in schools has hurt boys even more than girls.

Boys tend to respond well to clear requests, a list of tasks and measurables and a set time-frame in which to achieve them. Give them an open ended 'play through learning exploration of sand' and they'll fuck around for a few hours and when you ask them what they've found, you'll get comments like "the sand tastes funny."

ButTIRFlies - do you think there's something genetic in boys that prevents them from taking the opportunity to learn independently?

Thanks butTERFlies, that's interesting.

I think ALL children respond better to clear requests and knowing what is expected of them, I don't think this is a boy/girl thing. I would think girls may worry more about having something to show the teacher because of being good thing - socialisation.

Is there any evidence to the coursework theory above the fact that girls started to achieve more around the same time coursework came in? I've looked (quickly) but haven't found any actual evidence only news reports quoting the AQA boss at the time.
Also about knowledge /application is this an anecdote or has their been study into this?

To be honest, I think the reason that these generalisations annoy me is that I always did better in exams than coursework and I did Physics A level rather than Biology. I know you are not saying that ALL girls think one way and ALL boys another but if the theory doesn't work for everyone then it's wrong to have these expectations of children because of their sex.

Yes.

I'd moderate 'prevents' but that's veering into a pointless semantic argument.

I'd say a genetic limitation in the ability to learn independently is a fairly major thing tbh. Given that you think boys have that, how do you reckon they've managed to grow up to occupy almost every powerful position in the entire world?

"Is there any evidence to the coursework theory above the fact that girls started to achieve more around the same time coursework came in?"

It's circumstantial and anecdotal but I advocate that the plural of anecdote can be data when the anecdotal evidence comes from trusted individuals. It needs to be carefully analysed but we will never have an answer to questions like this simply because there is no way of ethically testing. My first passion (and speciality) is language acquisition - most of our data comes from very sad cases.

Generalisations may annoy you, but that doesn't mean you're right.

I stand at the entrance to school every day and know 90% of the students names (850+). We contractually have a maximum class size of 16 and a budget many schools dream of. Even with this, no student has a perfectly individualised education. We don't discriminate based on sex and buck several trends but they still exist. 100% of the maths faculty are women. STEM derived out of school activities have 50:50 attendance (sex) but girls simply aren't interested in going further in their studies in these areas. The same is shown the world over; equality of opportunity often leads to lower take-up of 'traditionally male' subjects.

I'm not sure what theories you mention. That girls tend to do better in one area and boys in another. That is a fact. Girls and boys perform differently according to the method of testing. That is a fact.

Spaghettijumper

Surely I've explained this already and combined with the most basic knowledge of history you would know the answers.

Women have, until quite recently, been excluded from education or the methods of education and assessment have been steered to benefit boys / men.

Now that women are outsrtipping men in educational attainment and employment and earnings until their early 30s, it seems like equality of opportunity either exists or doesn't and men are being treated unfairly.

Now that women are outsrtipping men in educational attainment and employment and earnings until their early 30s, it seems like equality of opportunity either exists or doesn't and men are being treated unfairly.

I'm not sure I understand this statement - are you saying that women outstripping men in attainment and employment is as a result of unfairness towards men?

No.

I've said that they are.

If we base equality on outcome then yes, boys / men are disadvantaged. If we base equality on opportunity then we live in an incredibly fair society where differences of outcome are not due to opportunity.

edit:

I've said that they are [outstipping men and the reasons for this are not proven. I believe it's down to testing methods and the curriculum on which they're tested. Whether this is fair or not is an incredibly difficult question and I don't feel qualified to answer]

So how do you explain the fact that once they're in their 30s men start to earn more than women and that in almost every company in the UK there's a significant gender pay gap with women earning quite a lot less than men?

We don't discriminate based on sex and buck several trends but they still exist. 100% of the maths faculty are women. STEM derived out of school activities have 50:50 attendance (sex) but girls simply aren't interested in going further in their studies in these areas.

Your school being all fabulously non discriminatory (well done for following laws) does not prevent girls hearing the message from the rest of society that STEM careers are not for them. Especially if their teachers don't believe it themselves.

Girls and boys perform differently according to the method of testing. That is a fact.
Is it? I've heard it said before but not seen any evidence which is why I was asking if you knew of any studies/data I could read that show this.

Spaghettijumper

Women often decide to focus family as opposed to careers. It's no coincidence that women do as well as men when they don't have children and take extended time off during such a crucial time in a career.

jellyfrizz

What laws are you talking about?

Conspiracy theories about society 'telling' girls certain things doesn't make it true. We have a female Principal (me), female head of Secondary, the entire Maths faculty is female and the head of Science is female.

How is society telling these girls not to pursue STEM careers and why is this such a benchmark of attainment and equality anyway? Badly paid and overly demanding.

"Girls and boys perform differently according to the method of testing. That is a fact."

"Is it?"

Still yes.

I tried to explain the difficulties in ethically proving this but I assume you're being obtuse.

So boys are disadvantaged by the system but women are disadvantaged due to their own choices?

What laws are you talking about?

"We don't discriminate on sex" Equality Act 2010. That one. You would be breaking the law if you did discriminate on sex.

"Girls and boys perform differently according to the method of testing. That is a fact."
"I tried to explain the difficulties in ethically proving this but I assume you're being obtuse."

It should not be difficult to prove this at all. We should have seen a big difference in boys' performance when coursework was removed from maths GCSE for example if it were truly significant.

Spaghettijumper

That isn't close to what I've said.

jelly

That law would maybe mean something if I worked in the UK. British curriculum but not in the UK.

It seems you have a much lower standard of proof than I do. Yes, there's a lot.

This is a good read.

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.462.7966&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Conspiracy theories about society 'telling' girls certain things doesn't make it true.

And some random on the internet saying it's not true doesn't make it not true.

How is society telling these girls not to pursue STEM careers
From an early age boys get given Lego or science kits while girls get craft kits for a start. There are many other ways. A quick google will bring up lots for you to read.

and why is this such a benchmark of attainment and equality anyway? Badly paid and overly demanding

It was you that brought up STEM.

It is what you said butTIRFlies. You said boys don't succeed due to the style of teaching and testing while women earn less because they choose to focus on their family.

These two are good. I'm biased as one is an ex-colleague.

Elwood, J. Undermining Gender Stereotypes: Examination and Coursework Performance in the UK at 16, Assessment in Education

Arnot, M. et al. Recent Research on Gender and Educational Performance, Ofsted.

Have you actually read that butTIRFlies? Because it supports the theory that socialisation is what causes the differences (and analyses data from a time when boys were outperforming girls).

When saying that boys do better with stuff like physics, please remember that is socialisation not anything innate.

There are some countries where it is girls who do better at physics. To the extent that they need to run scheme she to address the lack of diversity.

I suspect men having power is a result of biology...physical. History. And once you have power, it sticks. You reward people in your image.

Telling a girl she is weird for doing physics
Telling a girl that real girls can't do physics
A group of girls giggling that they can't do physics

It really tells you that you are special in a very bad way

You have to have a strong stubborn streak to do physics as a girl

There was an experiment once with a group of just out of nappies children.

Firstly the children were assessed by their nursery staff for traits such as boisterous, caring etc. The traits followed the expected sex. Girls were gentle. Boys liked cars

Then the children were asswssed by a second group of nursery staff who didn't know the children. Again boys liked cars, girls played with dolls.

They then revealed that the "boys" in the second test were actually the girls and vice versa

The nursery staff saw behaviours, ext based on the clothes not the child. Sterotypes start very young.

You know that most of your post was incomplete sentences, right Midgebabe?

It was your second post that didn't use sentences.

The third has literally nothing to do with aptitude for a subject at GCSE or above.