Would a move back to single sex education help our girls?

[BalletBunting]

I've been meditating on this recently - particularly seeing reports of the shocking levels of sexual harassment girls experience at school, as well as seeing the levels of gender stereotyping both my DC (one of each) have experienced since they were born. It made me wonder whether a move back to more single sex schools (for secondary at least) could actually have a positive effect on children of both sexes (and girls in particular)

Less sexual harassment, less stereotyping and as I understand the research shows that children do better in single sex environments, where they don't feel they need to 'perform' for the opposite sex. It also means that difficulties of puberty including hormones, menstruation etc can be dealt with in what might feel like a more safe environment.
Thoughts?

However, girls schools are notorious for dumbing down curriculums to boost results

How would that even work? Kids all have to sit the same exams, with the same exam boards, at GCSE and A Level.

Like Fibbke said, batshit.

How would that even work? Kids all have to sit the same exams, with the same exam boards, at GCSE and A Level.

No they don't. Schools choose which exam boards they use and they also choose what subjects to offer.

Theoretically a boys school could offer maths, English, 3 sciences, history, french, Latin, economics while the girls school offered English, maths, science BTEC, cooking, textiles, hospitality etc.

It wouldn't be that extreme I know but schools can offer what subjects they want. Definitely schools choose the best exam boards for them ie ones that are possibly easier to get certain grades in.

Our school changed to Cambridge IGCSE because it was considered an easier board than some of the others when specifications changed.

They do English gcse a year early.

I didn't think they could do that any more, or at least if they do, the schools can't include the results in their stats? They have to only count all exams taken at the same time in one sitting, so no re sits etc.

Girls' schools do not dumb down their curriculum, Jesus fucking Christ. The girls' school I taught in was fiercely academic.

Also, one of the reasons so many boys' schools became co-ed was to boost their results. Girls' outperform boys (nationally, every year) at GCSE and at A level. Add girls to boys' school and the results go up.

Theoretically a boys school could offer maths, English, 3 sciences, history, french, Latin, economics while the girls school offered English, maths, science BTEC, cooking, textiles, hospitality etc.

Or vice versa, since afaik theres no data to support the 'dumbing down' assertion...
Oh, and FWIW DDs school did offer food tech gcse (alongside electronic products, comp sci etc) but apparently the stats say it's actually one of the hardest subjects to get high grades in.

DDs school chose igcse chemistry (a few years ago, before the reforms) because they viewed it as more rigorous.

I suppose the stats on the participation of girls in A level physics and further maths within girls schools versus mixed support 'dumbing down' as they're piss easy to get high grades in.

Theoretically a boys school could offer maths, English, 3 sciences, history, french, Latin, economics while the girls school offered English, maths, science BTEC, cooking, textiles, hospitality etc

what a patronising load of rubbish. By the way, anyone lurking, this doesn't actually happen (as well as the hundreds of girl on girl sexual assualts mentioned upthread).

Science BTEC!! WTAF are you on?!

I went to an all girls comp in the 80s. My dds have been to two all girls private schools. Even the one that wasn't quite as academic didn't offer Science BTEC at gcse level. Currently dd can choose all those you list as 'boys school subjects' plus Mandarin, Greek. No economics gcse but at A level, plus Classics, Computer Science. Fab results all round including STEM. Sorry but you are talking nonsense.

We had boys from the boy's school next door coming to our sixth form because theirs couldn't timetable A level physics and biology. When the two schools combined, we sat mock A levels together and the girls scooped up the too five places in maths (and all the further maths places simply because the boy's school hadn't offered that A level).

Not sure where these mythical girls schools are dumbing down the curriculum because I've never come across any.

Still think that's a batshit, totally made up argument

My school didn't 'dumb down' as such but as I said upthread there were subjects that were compulsory that were 'girls' subjects'.

At my cousin's school she had compulsory child care classes.

I think with Academies and religious bodies opening schools there is potential for a 'girls curriculum' based on stereotypes and religious views.

At the moment single sex schools tend to be grammars, making them the norm, well I can see dangers in that.

The other objectionable thing in that 'dumbing down' list is the denigration of 'feminine' subjects such as food tech and textiles. As I mentioned, food tech is hard to get top grades in - it was a source of pride that many DD's school did so (they were all encouraged to do a tech subject and an 'art' subject alongside their more academic subjects, which included triple science, a humanity and an MFL as standard).

That was an xpost with sashh. I agree there could be a danger with religious schools where it could be segregation rather than separation.

I reckon some level of teaching of 'girl subjects' such as food tech and childcare for all pupils might be a very good idea.

Not sure where these mythical girls schools are dumbing down the curriculum because I've never come across any.

Still think that's a batshit, totally made up argument

That’s because it is. My DD did GCSE last year and worked extremely hard for all her subjects, including 2 languages, and it’s pretty sexist to suggest the girls schools dumb anything down without hard evidence.

The other objectionable thing in that 'dumbing down' list is the denigration of 'feminine' subjects such as food tech and textiles

Agreed. Creative subjects are actually really difficult too, especially if you take more than one, it’s an enormous amount of coursework. Not sure why these are considered inferior subjects tbh

dd2 wants to take textiles A level and emailed Durham and Exeter to ask if she'd still be considered to do the subject she wants to apply there for. They both said she should definitely do the A level that corresponds to the subject, then the other two should be any ones that she feels she would do best in.

So ner at Textiles nay sayers!!

Science BTEC!! WTAF are you on?!

BTEC science was definitely being offered 4 years ago when my dd did her GCSEs

And for clarification I am not saying that girls schools dumb down, nor that there are girls subjects. I was answering the poster who said it couldn't happen because all schools sit the same GCSEs. The truth is that no they don't so it could happen that boys and girls schools offer different subjects.

I'm not saying that it does happen but that it isn't impossible that it could happen.

Our local boys offers a Btec on mechanics and motor engines.
Pretty sure the local girls school doesn’t.

Was BTEC the only science course offered or did they offer it alongside GCSE? If the former, then it does sound a bit shit and I'm sorry your daughter ended up there, but that's just one school being a bit shit, not all girls' schools. If the latter, well that's a good thing. More theoretical, academically oriented courses suit some kids, and more practical, applied courses suit others, and it's good for a school to cater to both.

I'm not saying that it does happen but that it isn't impossible that it could happen

So in fact you've created an entirely hypothetical, "straw situation" to argue against.

Back to my original take on your reading of the situation: it is batshit.

Was BTEC the only science course offered or did they offer it alongside GCSE?

For the lower set it was the only option. You couldn't choose between BTEC or GCSE, the choice was made for you.

It didn't affect my dd, she did triple science.

I only used it as a comparison to show other posters that it could happen, particularly when a PP said that it couldn't happen because all schools have to teach the same subjects and use the same examination boards.

I was just trying to highlight that, whilst unlikely, it was theoretically possible.

FermatsTheorem

How is it a straw man argument?

Another poster said that a school could not be dumbed down because all schools teach the same subjects and use the same exam boards - that isn't true.

And as another poster said, there is a danger that a deeply religious or misogynistic school could choose to limit subjects taught to girls.

You really are constructing a straw man argument. There are many, many mixed comprehensives which do precisely this (the rights and wrongs of it are a different issue: it should be offered to children on the basis that the more practical side is a better fit with their skills and interests, not as a default for the less able).

You're trying to make a whole argument out of a mythical girls school which doesn't actually exist.

Going back to Jessica's point, creative subjects are indeed a huge amount of work, and when properly taught very demanding. Also (if you look at the stats for percentages of higher grades awarded) often harder to get good grades in.

Practical subjects are also not considered facilitating subjects by many universities.

How would that even work? Kids all have to sit the same exams, with the same exam boards, at GCSE and A Level.

I didn't realise it was you who posted this FermatsTheorem.

Rather than risk you claiming that I am posting a straw man argument I shall simply say that your above post is wrong.

Kids most definitely do not have to sit the same exams with the same exam boards.