Ofsted rates school inadequate over single sex lessons

[Imnobody4]

Not decided what I think about this. School is using something called the Diamond method where classes are sometimes sex segregated. On balance I think it could be helpful if and it's a big if it is done in a context of challenging stereotypes.

www.thetimes.com/article/033ae705-46f4-4614-9f42-d4767b156025?shareToken=7a2f2fe84398a775c4feeb7ba4d01667

My DD would love single sex lessons for some subjects.

The dance bit looks a bit suspect though.

Single-sex lessons fine. Different curricula for boys and girls probably not fine - though a bit complicated perhaps with PE-type things where culturally some activities are going to appeal much more to one sex than the other, but you might not want mixed groups.

You can read the actual report here, it's damning: https://files.ofsted.gov.uk/v1/file/50257103
Failures of safeguarding (not following Safer Recruiting standards), failure to address poor attendance among vulnerable pupils, no parent consultation on RSHE curriculum (this is a statutory requirement), poor lesson planning - the list goes on.

The point that the Times have latched on (school is unaware of statutory requirements to provide equal opportunities to boys and girls) is just one paragraph.

My secondary school did this method of teaching in yr7-9 before options were chosen for gcse. Sex split for sciences and PE music and drama (so boys would have PE whilst girls had chemistry etc). It was supposed to encourage girls confidence in science.

They also had some different PE sports but it was the nineties and fairly common I think. I enjoyed it- mixed classes for English/Maths/Geography/History so best of both

Dame Allen's private school in Newcastle upon Tyne follow this method from yr 7 to yr 11. Together for 6th form

That's a dreadful Ofsted report. A school that fails to carry out the statutory safeguarding checks on staff deserves to "fail".

There's some nuanced advise for schools from the DfE about how they can legitimately offer single sex lessons where appropriate but must ensure that children are not barred from accessing the curriculum because of their sex (no more home economics lessons just for girls and technology for boys etc).
It seems as if the school has failed to read and understand the legislation and was offering a different curriculum based on sex.

It's also a dire article in the Times.

The report makes clear that it is not teaching girls and boys separately that is the problem, but rather giving them different curricula (e.g. different reading lists) that is potentially a breach of the EA. And of course this is just one minor point - the safeguarding failures are far more serious.

That's the thing that bothered me. I can see it's helpful sometimes but if boys reading lists are all war and football and girls all babysitting and fashion it's not.
Looks like the Times piece is a hit job on Ofsted.

I think it highlights the defensiveness of parents about bad ofsted reports... they don't want to believe the school has failings.

I think it depends on how and why the curricula is chosen.

I went to a girls' school and for O Level we studied 'Lord of the flies', not a single female character in it.

If it is a question of giving the group a list of texts and letting the students choose that is different to the ones highlighted by a previous poster.

Also for PE, if students vote on which sports / dance / movement classes then that's fine, if they are told girls do dance, boys do football that's different.

Not having adequate safeguarding though on its own deserves an inadequate rating. Children need to be safe in order to learn.

The fact that the inspector believed the school to be in breach of the EA suggests that they were indeed providing different options for girls and boys. If they were given a choice from the same reading lists, or given a choice of the same PE activities, then it would have not been a breach.

We had single sex lessons for some subjects (especially for P.E. as boys could NOT keep their hands to themselves).
Was always much better when just girls.

The trouble comes when you enact that with boys getting to do interesting things whilst the girls have to sit and watch because they're girls and can't possibly learn better that way or have a form of neurodiversity such as ADHD.

I would have gone absolutely apeshit at the idea that Meccano and Lego was for boys and having to sit nicely all cramped up drawing whilst the boys got to run around in lots of space.

ETA: Bearing in mind the board this on, that attitude would have reinforced the idea that I was a boy in a girl's body. I had quite enough of that as a child as it was - and when my options were reduced purely on the basis of my sex, I was distinctly unimpressed with the whole notion of being a girl.

We did go to an open day fir a school that used this model, but didn't apply.

Even if the girls and boys stream do the same curriculum it's fundamentally sexist. They talk a lot about how the children benefit but it's clear that the main benefits accrue only to the average, the typical and the gender-stereotype-conforming children. The boys who are quieter, less confident and less macho and would benefit from being away from the loud and dominant sporty boys don't benefit. The girls who are interested in bicycle maintenance and who really don't want to do dance but get outvoted don't benefit. If the school is offering any activity that some of the students aren't allowed to access because they don't have the same tastes and interests as the majority of their sex then that's enforcing gender stereotypes. Even when forllowing the same curriculum, they show examples of "boys learn best in more physical ways" so show the boys being taught a maths concept out in the playground using ropes and pavement chalk while the girls don't get to do that even if they happen to have a brain that learns best in more physical ways.

I think it's a terrible idea for anyone except those children who have been brought up in so rigidly sexist a way that they don't dare step out of the gender stereotypes. For those children it's probably great.

I call bullshit in the over generalisation that the diamond model is sexist. It recognises that society is sexist.

Girls and boys live in a real world where in some lessons girls will do better if they are in single sex setting.

When we have socialised both sexes so that the model no longer serves a purpose then we can call it a bad name and hang it. We are not there yet.

@CautiousLurker I'm sorry but your response is so painfully outdated and absolutely NOT 'backed by research' as you suggest.

@PatatiPatatras how lovely that you have the confidence to "call bullshit" without actually addressing any of my points.

How do you think a girl whose personality, learning style and interests fit more with the boys stream than the girls should be taught? Should the school pretend she is a boy, or force her into a stream that's unsuitable for her purely because of her chromosomes?

Teaching girls in a single sex setting does not mean the girls are being taught with daffodils in their hair.

Give the teachers more credit than that.

And the diamond model is used on bits of curriculum shared between boys and girls in which each learns better separately.

There's no choosing homemaking over technical drawing for the girls etc etc.

You don't know how the diamond model works is what I'm saying. And the mere fact you are thinking of boisterous girls and quiet boys is symptomatic of why it is still required.

My husband went to this school!

Knowing the history of the school helps to put it into context. It was actually 2 separate schools on 2 separate sites- a boys grammar school and a girls grammar school.
It sounds like they have decided to combine forces and become 1 school- however logistically they still have 2 separate sites, 1 of which is for girls and 1 of which is for boys.
Sixth formers used to move between sites to be able to study their chosen options.

I think they need to decide whether they are 1 school or 2 schools and act appropriately.

I do feel cross about the comments on the Ofsted report about how they haven’t monitored the impact on single sex teaching yet we all know that girls do better in single sex environments but yet most schools are mixed sex. What evidence is there that mixed sex is best?

I also don’t understand the comments about how the school is breaking the Equality Act when other single sex schools exist and don’t get these comments in their reports.

@CautiousLurker - the whole idea of 'learning styles' is now outdated and known to be nonsense. all kids can learn in a mixture of ways and it is not helpful to teach in one particular way for one particular group of kids.

I think there is an argument that sex-separated lessons allows children to break gender stereotypes more easily - in an all-girls maths or science class, some girls get to be geeks and be top, but they might hide their talents in a mixed class. But the teaching and curriculum should still be matched between the different streams.

If you read the report @C4tintherug the comments are not due to the split by sex, but by the fact that the boys and girls are accessing different curricula- girls won't access this physics topic because their feminine brains prefer biology (made up example!) it must be bad for it to be so damning. Also, massive safeguarding fails.

We run a diamond model and I taught the year 11 girls last year. We teach the class in front of us. I didn’t make any assumptions about the girls’ learning styles, but I think having a female maths teacher teach female students is great. In general, the girls seemed to be much more communicative with me when they were struggling than they would have been in a mixed class, and also much more willing to openly celebrate their successes. We built up a really awesome little supportive community. The difference wasn’t in how I acted with them, but more in how they acted with me and each other. It was a real treat to teach them (and we beat the equivalent boys set, which was nice).

@CautiousLurker Appeal on what grounds? The meat of the report is about failures of the school to perform it's statutory duties around recruitment, safeguarding, attendance, and parent consultation. Any school that does not follow Safer Recruitment is going to get an Inadequate rating. Any school that doesn't know whether pupils are actually onsite at any given time is going to get an Inadequate rating.

The stuff about diamond streaming - which would be perfectly fine if the school actually did it correctly, offering both girls and boys access to the same subjects - is a sideshow.

@C4tintherug

"I also don’t understand the comments about how the school is breaking the Equality Act when other single sex schools exist and don’t get these comments in their reports."

Because a single sex school is not breaking the EA - there is a specific exemption in the EA for single sex organisations. However if you are a mixed sex organisation, you MUST provide equal services and opportunities to both sexes - you cannot say "only boys can do football and girls must do dance", or "girls read Bronté but boys read Salinger".

The fact that it is really two separate schools actually explains a lot (although not the safeguarding and attendance failures).