Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by chelsea2, Oct 13, 2019.
....why are girls doing better in education?
I remember a training day on this in the early 90s. And the mid and late 90s. And the noughties. We were always presented with the same set of reasons and LOOK!!! The latest most definitely successful way to solve it!
How about making girls a bit more dumb, lazy, show-offy and naughty? Don't think that one's been tried yet.
“Play is really critical in child development.”
Interesting that in the US having boys start school later has a positive impact on their development.
So much stuff most of us involved in education could have told the researchers.
I often wonder if the statistics were reversed and boys out performed girls consistently over decades if anyone would be making a fuss at all. I expect not. Let’s face it women are still way behind on income and nothing has changed there. Yet these are the same women out performing boys at school. Funny that.
Back in the '90s it was a thing, especially with A level science. I remember some interview questions.
Somebody has to.
There is something deeply wrong with our society, that as soon as one particular group is identified as "more x" than the rest, an imperative somehow emerges that the rest need to catch up. There is something wrong with them because they are not the ones who perform the best. Does nobody see how circular this logic is?
That is the only impulse behind the question "why?" here.
Bugs me-the statistically better performance of one must mean the statistically worse performance of another. Girls do better therefore there is a problem with boys.
That's the way it was for a long time. My early years as a teacher were spent being trained on how to encourage girls and improve their attainment. I joined my last school in 2000, at the time boys outperformed girls, it still had to be addressed and was.
I thought the reason was supposed to be that school has increasingly become girl-friendly, it fits in with the decline in practical skills that I've been discussing elsewhere on here today. Also, girls tend to respond better to the more-paperwork result of decreased funding and larger class sizes.
I remember being lectured to by female colleagues in my first school (early 1980s) at a staff meeting they took over showing that girls under-performed because boys dominated discussion in class, because exams were more 'boy friendly' etc. They had a point.
But these things do go in cycles, and the GCSEs (& other course work i A Levels etc) moved the pendulum towards the way girls generally work & behave (yes, I know this is a generalisation, but having worked in single-sex boys, single-sex girls & co-ed schools, I conclude that it is a generalisation that is supported by experience and evidence).
Maybe moving towards assessment by end of course exams will move the pendulum back?
In some regards it still is. There is presently a big push in my area to get more girls into STEM fields as a result of 'wage gap' disparity. Result in, subjects that traditionally did well out of girls making A-Level choices are now struggling to fill a classroom... English Lit for example.
Hah! Reminds me of "I want all of our students to be above-average"!
One reason previously given for girls outperforming boys was the emphasis on course work, in which girls generally did better. However the 2019 GCSEs were almost all 100% based on the final exam and the gap hasn't closed at all.
I don't remember any training days!
Is there any significant difference in the performance of boys attending primary schools where around half the teachers are male, if such places actually exist?
Not disparaging the work of primary teachers at all, by the way, as I've worked with significant numbers of them in recent years, and I rarely fail to be impressed. I couldn't do that job every day, for sure.
There must however be many younger boys who have hardly any positive adult male influence in their early lives. Assuming male influence is still considered a good thing. I lose track these days.
Societal expectations? Girls are expected to be quiet, docile, co-operative. Boys are expected to be rowdy, rambunctious and rebellious?
Societal pressure? Lot of pressure on girls in an upwards direction. Get qualifications. Get to University. Get a good job. Not so much on boys. Apprenticeships for you lads. Close the wage gap.
Reading? Women read... girls copy their mothers. Girls read. Exams are geared towards readers. Men don't read [as much]. Boys copy father not reading. Boys struggle with understanding texts in exams.
Decline in male role models, both in school and as an impact of divorce [with children usually going with the mother] - not a dig at single mothers, just a reflection of the impact.
All these are just speculative... I don't know.... might it have a feed on effect to male suicide rates later in life?
When I trained-71/74-boys were way ahead of girls and the situation only began to equalise with the introduction of coursework. Girls, generally, more methodical while lads just wanted to finish tasks asap. it was interesting to observe the shift in attainment and the effect this had on the boys particularly. There had always bee 'characters', but gradually I noticed an 'edge' appear in their behaviour. 'It was a joke' became an excuse for some nasty behaviour and bullying.
I'm not generalising, just commenting on my observations during 40 years teaching.
Because they're more authentic.
A lot of boys are utter *****.
It began with "d" and rhymed with ******
Sorry, in what way are women "way behind in income"? Are you suggesting there is some dark and dishonourable reason why women are not earning more? I presume you realize it is illegal to pay a woman less money than a man for doing the same job and has been for many years? If there is an earnings gap have you considered it exists for reasons other than the machinations of the "evil patriarchy"? Are you aware that more women work part time than men so if one carries out a crude comparison it appears an injustice is being done when of course it is nothing of the sort. Are you aware that when working full time men tend to work longer hours than women so will take home bigger wages as a result? Women tend to take career breaks to have children so this will mean when crude comparisons are made it could be wrongly interpreted that women are the victims of injustice because their earnings over time will be less. What I wonder is why feminists bang on about the "gender pay gap" when actually no such thing exits.