The intersectional feminist rewriting the national curriculum

[IwantToRetire]

" ... The tendency of those with XX chromosomes to prefer empathising and working with people and the tendency of those with XY chromosomes to prefer systematising and working with things is something that’s true of all human societies – but it’s got nothing to do with biology, obviously. The way to dismantle the patriarchy, then, is to teach boys that masculinity is toxic and get girls to stop playing with dolls.

... Sixty-three per cent of girls meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths at the end of primary school, compared with 56 per cent of boys. Last year, 68 per cent of girls in state schools achieved both English and Maths GCSEs at grade 4 or above, but only 63 per cent of boys. (By that metric, the lowest-achieving demographic in England are white British boys on free school meals.) Just 40 per cent of 19-year-old males were in higher education at the last count, compared with 54 per cent of women. Moral panic? ... "

Full article at https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-intersectional-feminist-rewriting-the-national-curriculum/

This article for me shows the problem when some of the points made seem more than valid, but then when you find out the reasoning of the authoring for saying them, realising you can reach the same conclusion from very different starting points.

@cupcaske123

I agree 100% with your first two paragraphs.

In your final paragraph, it depends what you mean by no evidence.

There is extremely strong evidence that IQ is heritable. And extremely strong evidence that IQ correlates positively with educational success (which is what I take you mean by “successful”. Many other types of success exist, of course).

Key excerpts from a bbc report 18 months ago:

Overcrowded specialist schools: ‘We’re teaching in cupboards’ www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-64418797

The shortage of places in special educational needs schools is a problem across the UK, with unprecedented demand for support.

Advances in life expectancy, more awareness and better diagnosis means there are now more children and young people with needs that are difficult to meet within mainstream schools. The pandemic has added to a system already under pressure.

Over the past five years, the number of children and young people being educated in specialist schools and colleges in England has increased by nearly a third - to 142,028 last year.

We found that just over half (52%) of SEND schools had more children in classes than their number of commissioned places.

Nationwide, the number of pupils with EHCPs has risen by 50% since 2016, to just over 355,500 last year.

Money for specialist schools comes from the high needs funding given to councils. Per pupil funding at specialist schools starts at £10,000 per child and is topped up further depending on need.

If a school takes on more pupils above their commissioned places, it won't necessarily receive the full high-needs funding for each additional child - that's a decision for the local authority.

Despite an extra £400m in high-needs funding announced in the Autumn Statement, the Local Government Association (LGA) says councils are facing "significant financial challenges" and need long-term certainty over funding to support children with SEND.

Louise Gittins, a councillor and chairwoman of the LGA's children and young people board, has told the BBC that if no action is taken, councils will be in deficit by £3.6bn on SEND spending by 2025.

What's actually happening is that private companies are setting up send schools and alternative provisions left right and centre for children who've no appropriate place in state send schools.

It's costing some LAs as much as 70,000 per pupil to send them there.

This is an old article from 2017 describing the issue back then. schoolsweek.co.uk/private-special-school-places-cost-480-million-per-year/

Children who go to private schools tend to do better than those who don't. Their parents tend to be wealthy. Wealth isn't necessarily an indicator of intelligence, some children inherit businesses or money, get into good careers through knowing the right people and of course there's the old school tie.

A private school also provides many amenities a state school does not and instills confidence. It gives children more opportunities to discover talents and abilities. Wealthy parents may also be able to introduce their children to more cultural activities and travel than their less wealthy counterparts.

When universities were free, many children from deprived backgrounds went on to develop successful careers for themselves and were the first in their families to get a degree. That wasn't because their parents didn't have a high IQ, it was because they may have come from working class backgrounds where it was expected that they'd go straight into work from a young age.

IQ isn't the only factor when it comes to intelligence. A person's environment is a strong influence. Things that contribute towards intelligence include, home environment, parenting, education and availability of learning resources, and healthcare and nutrition. Both genetic factors and environment play a part in a child's intelligence.

@cupcaske123

Yes, I agree with all of that.

(I usually use IQ and intelligence as synonyms, but I agree with you that environment, parenting, etc all play a role in shaping that).

I think your general point is that the family a child comes from influences their educational outcomes. To me it is pretty clear that some factors can also be influenced by the education system but many can’t (eg genetic intelligence).

Is there a correlation between wealth and intelligence? I would say 100% and in a meritocracy that is one of the aims. But of course not every wealthy person is intelligent and it does depend on how you define intelligence. On average though, kids who have wealthy parents are likely to benefit from the material ability to buy opportunities, as well as the genetic advantages of parents who are intelligent/hardworking, as well as a culture that values education. It is impossible to eliminate this type of advantage completely, unless you want a dystopian level of state intervention.

And in fact you wouldn’t want to: parental interest is what powers the education system. If you remove it (in the same way kin-caring has been removed from hospitals, for example), the state will have to compensate for every child. It’s much better if the state only has to compensate for the parents who can’t/won’t show an interest.

Generally I deeply agree. Other European countries do not have our disparities of outcome. Intelligence is inherited and slates are not blank. Some are a bit smudged.
Good, well-organised knowledge-based education can help the most disadvantaged, whatever their intelligence.
Class and opportunity are what lead to success, with some academic achievement (doesn't have to be more than average). Working-class children are massively disadvantaged by an education that is skewed towards skills (knowledge leads to skills, but skills cannot be taught of themselves) and which omits as elitist the things children who go to private schools get e.g. education in the arts and drama, Classics, wide-ranging history and other humanities (not all lumped together) as well as good science and maths teaching. When state school children can all reliably get that then we will bridge the current gap. Unfortunately many in education see Classics and classical languages as elitist (when people - men mostly, sorry - who do these as degrees go far and do well), and consider e.g. Shakespeare not 'relevant'. Relevance is the curse of education. We cannot know what will be relevant but we do know what has been relevant to success, so we can teach that - except mostly we will not.

bump

I feel the fathers issue is more complex, but is relevant. Fathers typically play a different role than mothers in terms of what they mean for their child's outcomes, psychologically. This is however hard to test in a way that gives very comprehensive information.

And then there is the economic issue.

Some of this comes down to the fact that when we don't see fatherhood as very important, it means more men don't see the need to stick around when things get difficult, or men who in a different age might have shaped up due to fatherhood don't see the need.

People who argue the fatherhood question, for example Glen Loury, would say that you can see a clear correlation between reduction of two parent households in the black community, and poorer outcomes and fewer gains for black families (in the US.) Now maybe that is not causal, but it seems a real possibility that I am hesitant to dismiss out of hand.

My partner, who is an Afro-Carribean working class man, who immigrated here as a young man, grew up in a very matriarchal house, and his own father was barely present. He does not think fathers are particularly important to children at all, and I think it certainly affected his relationship to his own kids (who were grown by the time I met him,) and I think has been damaging to him (something he's only understood as he got older) and to them as well, if only because they've lacked the support of one parent - but I cannot think it likely that's the only way it's had an affect. And FWIW, I think not having a present father figure, and the one that was there having children all over the place, affected his relationships with women as well.

As far as school models go, tbh I am not sure if we just aren't on almost entirely the wrong track.

I think for most children up to about 13 or so, the ideal is something like the old fashioned cottage school, with very little in the way of big money resources like gymnasiums and computers, but small, mixed groups of local kids with solid emphasis on basics like reading and maths, but also plenty of good stories, music, time outside in nature, as well as practical skills.

But that is so far from what we have I have no clue how we'd get there.