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

The first paper you linked to talks about how GCSE choices are affected by parental and societal influence such as these stereotypes. See Section 2 particularly.

ButTIrflies...I was having a moment. Girls get bullied if the do boy things and it leaves a mark.

Gender stereotyping is chronic. If you are told age 2 that you are good or not with cars, you believe it.

Until we get rid of the sterotype assumptions we will have inequality of opportunity

Check out Lise Elliot's work- Pink Brain, Blue Brain - it very effectively dismantles "gender differences as being innate brain differences".

Cordelia Fine is also good - can't remember the name of her book.

Both neuroscientists, both fed up with this Mars and Venus rubbish

Both worth reading.

Fine is terrible. She doesn't dismantle anything. Ad hoc hypothesising in an area of science unlike most others (race and sex are rarely broached). She cherry picks poor studies and is good at pointing out why they're bad. However, she rarely (ever?) acknowledges or attempts to do the same for tons of reliable data against her argument.

She's also frequently quoted out of context with people ignoring her saying things like,

"the point is not that the brain is asexual, or that we shouldn’t study sex effects in the brain. Genetic and hormonal differences between the sexes can influence brain development and function at every level"

As there is very weak proof that socialising or parenting has much effect behaviour at all so I'm not sure why you think a very valid theory is "rubbish".

Let me spin that on its head;

What evidence would convince you that psychological differences in the sexes have evolved?

my mum recently gayed..!? my mom recently gayed my dad.,!?@'""

Scientific American September 2017 was a good issue if you want to be assured of the strength of different scientific opinions ( library, I get access through work)

Also have a look at the Harvard unconscious bias web site.

If socialisation and parenting meant nothing and girls and boys were fundamentally different in their brains, why are the differences between the behaviours and strengths of boys and girls variable over different cultures and different time periods ? In some cultures girls dominate physics. What would that mean for women at the top of their male dominated scientific field?

Show me the tons of reliable data that suggest innate differences as opposed to socialised ones.

I find this whole 'boys and girls learn differently' thing to be a load of rubbish. I think people learn differently, and trying to ascribe this to sex harms as many as it helps.

I say this as a woman that prefers exams to coursework (ripping off the plaster compared to the long slog), maths and physics which can be reasoned about rather than fluffy stuff or memorisation etc. Unlike DP, who does better on things he can work on, or that can be waffled about.

I have 2 boys, they both learn in totally different ways, both have entirely different needs - DS1, the dyspraxic one, wouldn't have been picked up on unless I'd had DS2 and realised just how different they are, and gone for a private assessment - all I got at his first school was that as a boy, he was expected to be a bit behind on things like handwriting (completely ignoring that he was ahead on reading/self-expression in other ways, and hated art, was hugely clumsy, and other, obvious signs - now that I know what I'm looking for).

I sometimes think I've done him and his little brother a disservice in some ways because I do require that they wait their turn and ask permission, whilst other kids barrel on ahead and push past - I've actually had to train a bit of assertiveness back into them so they don't continuously miss-out on stuff

Just look at how they're realising that so many girls have hidden issues, because they're trained to sit down, the expectations on girls are the same expectations I've put on my boys, and it does hold them back compared to less controlled kids.

@butTIRFlies I didn't say Fine 'dismantles' it, I said Elliot did. Have you read her work?

What would convince me? Evidence. That's pretty much always the answer to that question.

Can I just double check that you really, truly think that 'Mars and Venus' is a 'very valid theory?' It's like astrology!

Elliot spends a considerable amount of time looking at testosterone, and how that affects boy's early behaviour - more energetic, more aggressive, etc, leading to changes in how we treat boys, how we set and enforce boundaries, etc. Boys and girls are treated enormously differently - by parents, the public, school. It would be a miracle if there wasn't some evidence of that on the brain.

@MIdgebabe Agree entirely. The Harvard stuff is great - will try to track down the issue you mention.

@DisturblinglyOrangeScrambleEgg I agree. I have a son and a daughter, yet I was one of three girls. My son and my daughter are different people. My sisters and I are different people. Ascribing the differences between my children to what's going on between their legs, yet finding alternative explanations for the differences between me and my sisters makes no sense and doesn't help anyone.

@MIdgebabe

"If socialisation and parenting meant nothing..."

Absolutely. You have to be a complete moron to think that socialisation makes no difference to a child or person. Equally, you have to be a complete moron to base yourself at the other end of the spectrum. Radical or extreme anything is usually wrong - I can't think of any situations where it's right.

I think the intelligent debate or question is around the middle.

"why are the differences between the behaviours and strengths of boys and girls variable over different cultures and different time periods ?"

A questionable premise (at best). Over culture, time and species, sex-based differences are remarkably similar.

" In some cultures girls dominate physics."

Where? A 2 minute google didn't help.

"Until we get rid of the sterotype assumptions we will have inequality of opportunity"

So we have inequality of opportunity. I assume you mean in favour of boys. Despite this women do better in education and employment until early 30s. Does this mean society is skewed to favour females?

@YellWat

" I didn't say Fine 'dismantles' it, I said Elliot did. Have you read her work?"

My mistake. No I haven't. Is she better than Fine or would that be a waste of time too?

"What would convince me? Evidence."

I asked "what evidence" as I'm sure you know.

"Can I just double check that you really, truly think that 'Mars and Venus' is a 'very valid theory?' It's like astrology!"

No. There is no argument that the brain is asexual. There is no argument that genetic and hormonal differences have an effect on brain development and structure. I am talking about the theory that physiological differences in the sexes are due to evolution and have more effect than socialisation.

@DisturblinglyOrangeScrambleEgg

re. your user name, I thought the same when we first got chickens

"I find this whole 'boys and girls learn differently' thing to be a load of rubbish. I think people learn differently, and trying to ascribe this to sex harms as many as it helps."

Yes and no.

People learn differently but you are comparing your personal experience to massive amounts of data, looking at single-sex education, differing outcomes depending on teaching styles or examination methods.

This is a fact and 5 minutes reading will show you that this is a fact.

The question of why this is true is unanswerable, at least at the moment which brings us back to nature vs nurture. On my 'side' there is Occam's Razor, decades of observation and no ideological reason to swing one way or another.

On yours there's ... ?

Well, you prefer exams and your husband doesn't.

Your son with AEN had bad teachers (disparity in aptitude across similar sibjects should always a cause for investigation)

"I sometimes think I've done him and his little brother a disservice in some ways ..."

Yes. I'm sure you have. Why the race to the bottom? Assertiveness is not the issue that some like to believe it is.

Confidence, assertiveness (call it what you want) is a massive benefit for anyone and we actively encourage it at school ... it's what parents pay for.

"Just look at how they're realising that so many girls have hidden issues, because they're trained to sit down"

Ah, ASDs (I assume that's what you're referring to) are due to lack of training and those children are a bit shit at sitting down?

I wish I knew how to train these children to overcome ASDs. CBT unfortunately doesn't work.

Girls do sometimes go undiagnosed and can mask issues but this doesn't support your claim that it's due to socialisation.

"the expectations on girls are the same expectations I've put on my boys, and it does hold them back compared to less controlled kids."

I understand that you're coming from an ideological 'it's all nurture' standpoint but your mention of "training" is very strange.

If you've seen that it's holding your sons back, why are you doing it? Principle?

(Long post. Sorry. I've only addressed questions.)

@Mousing

It doesn't matter if the SLT intended to be sexist or not, the girls will see that the boys are being treated differently, and given better opportunities and will understand that it is sexism, even if they don't have the words for it.

I remember my grandparents buying my older brother things and take him on special trips all the time. When I asked, they would say my turn would come one day, but it never did. One day my Dad had to sit me down and explain why they were prioritizing him over me and the they were wrong to do that because up until then I had thought it was because of something wrong me.

You're their teacher. They need you to stand up for them. Please. I've read studies that say the sex differences in STEM can be traced back to the attitudes of the primary school teachers because that's when girls start thinking they can't do maths and science even though they are objectively better at it.

If those boys are getting 2 extra breaks a week every week the girls will notice. Set up a rotating schedule. Like the other ladies have said, burning off energy might help the boys, but so might firm expectations. Giving the 'energetic' boys extra time outside kind of feels like a 'boys will be boys' attitude (i.e. that their bad behavior should be excused or even rewarded and girls should be held to a higher standard).
I also like they other comments of ways to incorporate energetic activity as a group, like a dance break. Why does there have to be a timetable at all? Can't all the kids go on break at the same time? Better behaved kids will benefit from breaks too.

And with the building site, why are there only 6 kids going and how are they being chosen? Is it the most improved? Most interested? The kids who've missed out on the last trip to a building site? Why can't the whole class go? if that's too many kids can half go this week and half next week? It's great to get kids out seeing real work places but it's absolutely crap to give that opportunity to just 6 kids and it is sexist that they're all boys.

Going further than this issue in front of you, in the future you could arrange to take all the kids to work sites like observatories, mine sites, scientific laboratories, etc. Doesn't need to be segregated by sex but you could make sure when you're arranging it that there would be female role models around.

@butTIRFlies

I don't know what value it would be for me to recommend or not recommend Lise Elliot - you need to read her yourself and come to your own conclusion.

I personally admire her work and it references various different trials that demonstrate the impact of sexist behaviour (such as teachers telling students that boys do better in an exam - guess what, girls perform worse when that happens, whereas they don't when that's not stated!). As a mother of a boy and a girl, it's important to me that I don't perpetuate sexist behaviour - and I stop others from doing so as well - that might affect the development of my children's brains.

@YellWat

If I recommend a book or author, I can tell you why and in detail.

Self-fulfilling prophecies are nothing new but they also aren't gendered. If you tell any group that they're going to excel in an exam, the chances of them doing so are much more likely.

Girls are less likely to do well in exams. This is proven. Can you show me any examples of girls being told this before an exam? Are you advocating the silencing of academic studies because the results may have a negative impact?

Cordelia Fine (I hate going back to her repeatedly) made a false statement where she failed to understand the maths and reasoning in Bateman's experiments re. men being genetically predisposed to have multiple partners as it increases their chance of passing along their genes (the most fundamental task of any living organism). One scientist proved her wrong with a detailed analysis of the complex maths / biology. Another who had previously supported Fine said that the maths was correct but the humanity was lacking.

I feel like this exemplifies issues in this area. There's far too much politics and ideology and scientific method is the weaker for it.

Could you hazard a guess as to what percent of difference in brains is due to genetic and hormonal influence and can you back up you approximation with any evidence?

Girls are less likely to do well in exams. This is proven.

Less well than boys? You were just arguing the opposite.

Was I?

I hope I didn't use a double negative or similar.

Boys 'like' exams and girls 'like' coursework.

Interesting debate. But I expect Mousing dealt with this one way or another 3 years ago.
ZOMBIE thread.

Less well than boys? You were just arguing the opposite.

I must admit, that volte face confused me too.

I'll get on to my bit in a mo, but, back in the 60s when my mum and dad did their 11plus, when it was all exams and masculinised(?) education, girls did better on those 11 plus exams. I would like to see proof that 'girls do worse in exams'

On the rest, you are misunderstanding - I'm saying that a lot of how people learn, their strengths and weaknesses are innate, and that (for example) I haven't seen consistent, convincing research that justifies treating all boys one way and all girls another.

As to special needs - again, not training or socialization to blame, but that if you excuse something in boys, but repeatedly come down hard on it with girls, then there must be an effect.

And yes, it's principle. I have some that I don't compromise, there are things I won't do to get ahead, and teaching my boys to push to the front out of turn isn't one of them. I will teach them to be as fair and reasonable as I can, and I will back them to the hilt if people are being unfair to them (I am not above pushing them forward myself, or pointing out in a loud voice that it is their turn) - and that is the assertiveness and confidence I'll teach. Ie. Don't be a jerk. I think they'll do fine.

Although having said that - I've seen reproduced research showing that female names get lower marks for the same papers..

England 20% girls take physics to higher level. Scotland 30%. Bermuda highest at 80%. Try the institute of physics

For a more general set of how women in science varies by country see:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_science#Regional_trends_as_of_2013
butiflies
No of course women are not given extra opportunity over boys.. sorry if I gave that impression! Of course I meant exactly the opposite. Women are discriminated agains as a result of unconscious bias from birth which limits their opportunities.

Next time you apply for jons send in 2 applications that are identical in every way, except that one has a male name and one a female name. The count how many interviews come back from each. When all else is equal men get chosen.

Sounds like indirect discrimination to me. She better hope the girls parents don't find out.