Mercatornet, 02 August 2005
Written by Andrew Mullins
Comparing the benefits of single-sex education and coeducation.
Author Andrew Mullins is Headmaster of Redfield College, an independent Years 2-12 Boys’ school in the northwest of Sydney. His career has included over 25 years' teaching the humanities in Australian secondary schools, leading to his interest in presenting the wisdom of classic thinkers and philosophers. He has developed a strong policy of involving parents in the process of reflecting desirable values to young people. He is the author of Parenting for Character (Finch Publishing, 2005).
Current controversies The comparative benefits of single-sex and coeducational schooling have been much debated over the past 50 years. The proponents of single-sex education argue that boys and girls have differing needs and that their styles of learning are different. They point to data demonstrating the comparative under-performance of both boys and girls in co-ed classrooms.
Proponents of coeducation argue that mixed education is more in keeping with the mores of modern Western society, and that children from co-ed schools are better adjusted. Both contend that their own approach is truly holistic. The debate has a social component as well. Coeducation is sometimes regarded as a solution to the failure of the modern family to provide sufficiently for the effective socialization and moral development of children. The financial savings of using shared facilities have led governments to amalgamate formerly single-sex schools and open new co-ed schools, both public and private. In some countries governments have told independent schools to embrace coeducation or forfeit public funding. A new element in the debate is widespread agreement that somehow education is failing boys. Boys are generally outperformed by girls; statistics of self harm and depression amongst boys are alarming; there seems to be a growing alienation of boys from their parents and fathers in particular.
Psychologists write of the “father hunger” of boys who grow up without sufficient input from their natural father. As Western society strives for gender equality, everyone has become more alert to the unfairness of discrimination on the basis of sex. This argument is used by both sides. Proponents of single-sex education argue that only through single-sex education are the specific needs of boys and girls met. Proponents of coeducation argue that coeducation ensures equity of access to educational facilities and courses. Single-sex education supporters reply that equality of the sexes does not necessitate identical provision for males and females, and that the best way of attending to the needs of boys and girls is to offer them facilities and courses that satisfy their unique requirements.
The advantages of single-sex education Boys and girls are wired to learn in different ways It seems beyond dispute that boys and girls learn at different paces and in different ways. This is not a matter of gender bias, but of experience verified time and again by psychological research. The view from the 1970s that gender traits are mere cultural constructs has been discredited.
Cross-cultural studies over the past 30 years reveal that gender differences across the wide variety of cultures are remarkably constant (1). Here are some relevant differences. According to a 2001 study (2), women use the right and left hemispheres of the brain to process language; men use only the left hemisphere. In general men are more likely to use one area of the brain for a given activity; women are more likely to use more of the brain. Studies show that women respond to directions that include data about what they will see and hear; men prefer abstract directions (3) . Girls’ brains develop through adolescence so that girls are better able to discuss their feelings; boys’ brains do not. Research is revealing major physiological differences in the brains of even pre-adolescent boys and girls (4) . For example, seven-year-old girls hear better than boys (5). These physical differences lead to differences in the way boys and girls learn.
Teachers need to encourage girls, while boys need a reality check. Direct challenging works well with boys and they tend to respond to clear boundaries. Emotional activity is processed in a completely different part of the brain in older girls compared with older boys. It has been suggested that girls respond more innately to literature and that they more easily make links between ideas and emotions. In stories, girls tend to respond to nuances of character, boys to action 6. Role-playing exercises allowing a student to explore character work particularly well for girls. Inductive exercises allowing girls to act hypothetically also work well. There is evidence that boys respond more to structured lessons, finite tasks, and perhaps to the more abstract. Girls tend to respond more readily to group work and team work. One fascinating study suggests that under certain circumstances stress has a beneficial effect on male learning, but that it can impair the learning of a female, and that this characteristic is wired in the male brain from before birth 7.Most children learn better in a single-sex environment On average, children in single-sex education outperform children of comparative ability in co-ed contexts. In a 20-year Australian study of 270,000 students, Ken Rowe found that both boys and girls performed between 15 and 22 percentile points higher on standardised tests when they attended single-sex schools.(8)
The National Foundation for Educational Research in England (9) found that, even after controlling for student ability and other background factors, boys and girls performed significantly better academically in single-sex schools than in co-ed schools. Students in Jamaica attending single-sex schools outperformed students in co-ed schools in almost every subject tested.(10) A 1997 study by Jean and Geoffrey Underwood showed that girl-girl pairings performed best on tasks, and that girl-boy pairings tended to depress the achievement of the girls involved. (11) Boys and girls experience the benefits of schooling in different ways. British studies suggest that females more than males benefit academically from single-sex education: they participate more in class, develop higher self esteem, score higher in aptitude tests, are more likely to choose sciences and other male domains at tertiary level, and are more successful in careers.
Research suggests that boys dominate the classroom in a co-ed environment. Boys can behave more loudly. Some research has shown that girls receive fewer encouraging comments than boys in co-ed environments. Studies by Cornelius Riordan suggest that children from underprivileged backgrounds are the greatest beneficiaries of single-sex schooling.(12) The message of all this research is simple: there are no differences in what girls and boys can learn, but here are big differences in the best way to teach them.Single-sex education meets the needs of boys better Boys and girls have different needs and education which respects personal differences must take this into account. On a practical level, the intuitively directed and affectively oriented styles of learning which suit most girls are not always compatible with the more structured and practical approaches which appeal to boys. Single-sex schooling allows teachers to tailor their teaching style to the boys and facilitates a more rounded educational experience. In a co-ed school, boys can opt out of curriculum areas where they would be out-performed. Furthermore, there is evidence that mixed classrooms can discriminate against either boys and girls depending on the subject, the gender of the teacher, the teacher’s methodologies, and the prevailing culture in the school. Some schools have now started running single-sex classrooms in English and other humanities subjects to improve the performance of boys. The pilot study that demonstrated improved performance of boys in this context has been known as the Cotswold Experiment. (13) Single-sex education meets the needs of girls betterSingle-sex education has clear benefits for girls. In the first place, it often gives them expanded educational opportunities by allowing them to pursue non-traditional disciplines for girls such as mathematics or science.
Single-sex schooling also offers more opportunities to girls to exercise leadership. When girls and boys are in the same classroom, the boys tend to dominate and overshadow equally talented girls. On an emotional level, single-sex education puts less pressure on girls, especially in adolescence. At that age, girls are more prone than boys to suffer from low self esteem. It is difficult to manage this issue in a co-ed climate when boys dominate in the classroom and when they receive more recognition, allowance for misbehaviour and encouragement. Single-sex education makes greater provision for gender role modelingThe shortage of male teachers in the primary classroom is a concern in many countries. In the first six years of school, many boys in co-ed schools seldom encounter a male teacher. Because children imitate those they admire, it is common sense to ensure that boys and girls find in their teachers truly admirable role models. The example of professionalism, values and consistently positive behaviour is most important. But there are other aspects of example that are gender-specific. A boy learns what it means to be a man from his father, but this is reinforced if there are other admirable men in his life. This is also true for girls and their female teachers.Single-sex schooling allows boys and girls to mature at their own pace Girls mature earlier than boys: they are better behaved, more diligent and more sensible and they find it easier to relate to the adult world. For all these reasons, it is often argued that girls exert a civilising influence on boys. Whilst this may be true in some situation, the converse is also true: boys can uncivilise girls. When adolescent girls and boys study together, there is much evidence that a proportion will end up distracted from their work.
Single-sex schooling is often criticised for reinforcing negative images of masculinity. Unfortunately this can even happen in co-ed schools. The problem is not solved by bringing girls and boys together, but by vigilantly managing the culture in a school and sub-groups in the school. Single-sex schooling does not handicap children socially There is no evidence that children who have attended co-ed schools enter adult relationships that are more stable or fulfilling with the opposite sex. Assertions that children from co-ed backgrounds are better prepared for adult life seem to be flawed. There is a higher rate of unplanned pregnancies (and by implication, of terminated pregnancies) for girls in co-ed schools. One study has shown that students from single-sex schooling are not noticeably thwarted in the development of relationships with the opposite sex either at school or later at university.(14) Coeducation can allow socialising to complicate intellectual development. Of course a positive school culture and the superior training of teachers can work against this. But it is difficult to protect impressionable young people from the images of precocious intimacy that saturate the media. Since emotional attraction and physical attraction works first of all at the level of physical proximity, there seems a strong argument to separate a teenager’s academic world from his or her social world.
In a coeducational secondary classroom the lines between social life and school can become blurred. Single-sex education allows children to think about things “other than their hormones”. Single-sex schooling makes it easier to be a good parent Single-sex schools also provide parents with an opportunity to manage more effectively the social development of their children, particularly in the early years. It makes it easier for them to impart education about sexual matters in a way consistent with their values. Of course when parents choose to send their children to single-sex schools they will need to have much more initiative in providing for the social development of their children. They should set up many opportunities for boys to mix with girls in a family setting during childhood, well before they turn 14 or 15. It is very late to be starting to talk with a child about these issues once he or she has reached mid secondary school. An undeniable problem for all families is the gulf between home life and a teenager’s social world. Children must feel they can bring their friends home. Coeducational schooling does little to help because it creates a social environment which is totally beyond the parents’ knowledge and largely outside their control. Unhappily when youth culture becomes divorced from family life, a certain percentage of children are sure to end up badly damaged. Even if single-sex schooling is better for children, it demands more of their parents because they have to take responsibility for helping their children acquire mature social skills.
It is easier for parents who send their children to co-ed schools to shirk this responsibility, even though this is not a task which can be delegated to anyone else. Indeed, the notion that parents can wash their hands of the problems of teenage social life may account for some of the popularity of co-ed education. But although relinquishing their leadership role might make parents’ lives easier, the children often suffer from their neglect.
Quotes
• “You cannot tell from looking at a slice of someone’s brain if that person was Black or Asian, a Jew or a Christian, or a Hindu or a Muslim. But you can tell whether that person was male or female.” ~ National Association for Single Sex Public Education:
•“Girls’ schools provide an environment that not only is good in and of itself, but that in its redefinition of competitiveness and collaboration, of autonomy and connectedness, presents a model that other schools do well to emulate.” ~ Dr David Riesman, Harvard University
•“When girls go to single-sex schools, they stop being the audience and become the players.” ~ Professors Myra and David Sadker, American University
Internet links National Association for Single Sex Public EducationA site set up by Dr Leonard Sax. An excellent summary of the research. National Coalition of Girls’ Schools Useful quotes, references to research, lists of benefits of girls-only education. Do Girls and Boys Do Better in Separate Classrooms?4 Troubled Teens websiteThe New Gender Gap: From kindergarten to grad school, boys are becoming the second sex. BusinessWeek online. May 26, 2003. Boys just can’t be boys! Sid Sidebottom. Submission to Australian Parliamentary inquiry into education of boys. 2002.
References
(1) Paul Costa, Antonio Terracciano, & Robert McCrae, “Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, volume 81, number 2, pp. 322-331, 2001.
(2) Michael Phillips, Mark Lowe, Joseph T. Lurito, Mario Dzemidzic, and Vincent Matthews. Temporal lobe activation demonstrates sex-based differences during passive listening. Radiology, 220:202-207, 2001.
(3) N. Sandstrom, J. Kaufman, S. A. Huettel. Males and females use different distal cues in a virtual environment navigation task. Brain Research: Cognitive Brain Research, 1998, 6:351-360.
(4) María Elena Cordero, Carlos Valenzuela, Rafael Torres, Angel Rodriguez, “Sexual dimorphism in number and proportion of neurons in the human median raphe nucleus,” Developmental Brain Research, 124:43-52, 2000.
(5) John F. Corso, “Age and sex differences in thresholds”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 31:489-507, 1959.
(6) William Killgore, Mika Oki, and Deborah Yurgelun-Todd. Sex-specific developmental changes in amygdala responses to affective faces. NeuroReport, 2001, 12:427-433.
(7) Tracey J. Shores & George Miesegaes. Testosterone in utero and at birth dictates how stressful experience will affect learning in adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99:13955-13960, October 15, 2002.)
(8) “Boys and girls perform better at school in single-sex environments”. April 17, 2000.
(9) Spielhofer T, O’Donnell L, Benton T, Schagen S, Schagen I. “The Impact of School Size and Single-Sex Education on Performance”. National Foundation for Educational Research. 2002.
(10) Marlene Hamilton. Performance levels in science and other subjects for Jamaican adolescents attending single-sex and coeducational high schools, International Science Education, 69(4):535-547, 1985.
(11) Underwood, G., & Underwood, J. (1997). Children’s interactions and learning outcomes with interactive books. Paper presented at the CAL (Computer Assisted Learning) Conference, April 2 1997, at the University of Exeter.
(12) Cornelius Riordan. Girls and Boys in School: together or separate? New York: Teachers College Press, 1990.
(13) Steve Biddulph. “The Cotswold Experiment”. Certified Male. 1995.
(14) Neville Bruce and Katherine Sanders, “Incidence and duration of romantic attraction in students progressing from secondary to tertiary education,” Journal of Biosocial Sciences, volume 33, pages 173-184, 2002.
Girls 'need a bigger breakfast to match boys at school'
The Independent, 30 September 2003
By Lyndsay Moss
Girls need a bigger breakfast than boys to make sure they perform as well in school, according to research from the University of Ulster. A study found that while boys did best in performance tests while they were slightly hungry, girls needed to feel fully fed to keep up.
Girls need a bigger breakfast than boys to make sure they perform as well in school, according to research from the University of Ulster. A study found that while boys did best in performance tests while they were slightly hungry, girls needed to feel fully fed to keep up.
Dr Barbara Stewart, of the Northern Ireland Centre for Diet and Health, said that while the link between breakfast and school performance was well known, the latest research suggested that girls needed a more satisfying first meal of the day than boys.
A total of 56 pupils aged 11 to 13 were studied over six weeks, with one group fed a breakfast of toast and another given toast and baked beans. Researchers found the boys performed better in attention and memory tests when they were a little hungry, while girls did best in the tests when they were not hungry.
As the tests became more complex, participants who ate beans on toast for breakfast also did better than those who had toast alone.
"There have been a number of studies into the relationship between high carbohydrate breakfast and the ability to concentrate, but the results have been equivocal," Dr Stewart said. "A reason for these conflicting findings could be that many studies have investigated attention and memory in relation to breakfast without consideration of mood. Mood and cognition appear to interact and this seems to influence the type of breakfast required for optimal performance.
"The beans breakfast produced better performance among the girls, especially when they were experiencing a negative mood." Dr Stewart said the study also showed that performance was determined by factors such as gender and mood and not just breakfast.
Results of the study, part-funded by Heinz, will be presented at the European Nutrition Conference in Rome this week.
The gender gap in education
University of Cambridge, February 2007
The gender gap in education began to attract the attention of the British government and media in the mid-1990s, when it became apparent that girls were out-performing boys at school, at least in terms of certain key academic measures. At the time there was something of a 'moral panic', with some sectors of the press suggesting that the situation had reached 'crisis point' and that there was a need to re-focus equal opportunities to redress the balance for boys.
Within the project, this debate has been situated, however, within the much broader context of a post-industrial economy, where those who leave school with few qualifications, whether male or female, have limited opportunities in today's labour market. The research began initially in 1994, with a concern to explore the parameters and reasons behind the apparent 'under-achievement' among boys in English schools. Funded by Homerton College, Cambridge, the first phase of the early research focused on one school, developing in the second phase to use questionnaires and focus group interviews in fifteen state secondary schools across East Anglia. Between 2001 and 2005 the Raising Boys' Achievement project was funded by the Department for Education and Skills, and involved an intensive period of fieldwork in around sixty English schools, both primary and secondary, across a range of socio-economic areas.
While a key aim of the project was to identify strategies which aimed to raise achievement in schools, it did so within a gender relational approach, recognising diverse constructions of masculinity and feminity and questioning taken-for-granted concepts such as 'under-achievement'. The findings of such a project have made a widely acknowledged contribution to educational research, made explicit, for example, in an invitation to present the outcomes to a specially-convened three-day conference at the University of Alaska in May 2005, and at the European Conference on Educational Research in Crete in 2004. The research has also contributed to Geography in two key areas. Firstly, it has been apparent that many of the issues associated with 'under-achievement' are related to tensions between the culture of the school and images of masculinity held in the local community and wider society, with boys' construction of masculinity as competitive, macho and 'laddish' resulting in their gradual alienation from school as they seek to position themselves as 'hard' and 'cool'. This was particularly the case among white working-class boys in schools, for example, in inner city Manchester and in inner London boroughs.
The second key contribution has been methodological, with a commitment to process as well as outcome: how the conclusions emerged was as important as the actual findings themselves. Closely allied to this was an emphasis on relationships - between representatives from groups of schools who worked together, between each group and its link researcher, between representatives across groups, between members of the research team and between researchers and the subjects of their research. The importance of time to establish trust and productive working relationships was crucial to the success of the project. Finally was the emphasis on the pupils themselves, which involved not just listening to them but engaging with them, being interested in them and helping to ensure that their perspectives were valued and taken into consideration in the schools' own evaluations of project initiatives.
This research project has led to keynote presentations at: the Commonwealth Education Ministers Conference, Edinburgh (2003); the Council of Europe Network on Gender Mainstreaming Conference, Strasbourg (2004); a specially convened 2-day conference, University of Alaska (2005); and, in 2006, international conferences organised by Vhto (National organisation of Women in Higher Technical Education) and Universum bij het Plaform Techniek (the Dutch Education Ministry) at the University of Utrecht; FoU i praksis, University of Trondheim, Norway; and the European Union Conference on Men's Contribution to Gender Equality, Dublin.
Publications
Younger, M. and Warrington, M. 2006 Would Harry and Hermione Have Done Better in Single-Sex Classes? A Review of Single-Sex Teaching in Coeducational Secondary Schools in the United Kingdom, American Educational Research Journal 43.4: 579-620
Warrington, M. and Younger M. 2006 Raising Boys' Achievement in Primary Schools: an holistic approach, Maidenhead: Open University Press
Warrington, M. and Younger, M. 2006 Working on the inside: discourses, dilemmas and decisions, Gender and Education 18.3: 265-280
Younger, M. and Warrington, M. 2005 Raising Boys' Achievement in Secondary Schools: Issues, Dilemmas and Opportunities, Maidenhead: Open University Press
Younger, M. and Warrington, M. 2005 Raising Boys' Achievement, London; Department for Education and Skills, Research Report 636
Warrington, M. 2003 'We decided to give it a twirl': Single-Sex Teaching in English Comprehensive Schools, Gender and Education 15.4, 339-350
Warrington, M., Younger, M. and McLellan, R. 2003 Under-achieving boys in English primary schools? Curriculum Journal 14.2, 184-206
Younger, M. and Warrington, M. 2002 'Single-sex teaching in a co-educational comprehensive school in England: an evaluation based upon students' performance and classroom interactions' British Educational Research Journal 28.3, 353-374
Younger, M., Warrington, M. and McLellan, R. 2002 The 'Problem' of 'Under-achieving Boys': some responses from English secondary schools, School Leadership and Management 22.4: 387-403
Warrington, M. and Younger, M. 2001 'Single-sex Classes and Equal Opportunities for Girls and Boys: Perspectives through time from a mixed comprehensive school in England', Oxford Review of Education 27.3, 339-356
Warrington, M., Younger M. and Williams, J. 2000 'Student Attitudes, Image and the Gender Gap', British Educational Research Journal 26.3, 393-407
Warrington, M. and Younger, M. 2000 'The Other Side of the Gender Gap' Gender and Education 12.4, 493-508
Younger, M. and Warrington, M. 1999 'He's such a nice man, but he's so boring, you have to really make a conscious effort to learn': the views of Gemma, Daniel and their contemporaries on teacher quality and effectiveness, Educational Review 51.3, 231-241
Younger, M., Warrington, M. and Williams, J. 1999 'The Gender Gap and Classroom Interactions: Reality and Rhetoric?' British Journal of Sociology of Education 20.3, 325-341
Warrington, M. and Younger, M. 1999 'Perspectives on the Gender Gap in English Secondary Schools', Research Papers in Education 14.1, 51-77
Warrington, M. and Younger, M. 1996 'Goals, Expectations and Motivation: some observations on boys' underachievement at GCSE', Curriculum, 17.2, 80-93
Younger, M. and Warrington, M. 1996 'Differential Achievement of Girls and Boys at GCSE', British Journal of Sociology of Education 17.3, 299-313
Younger, M. and Warrington, M. 1996 'Gender and Achievement: the debate at GCSE', Education Review 10.1, 21-27
The gender gap in education began to attract the attention of the British government and media in the mid-1990s, when it became apparent that girls were out-performing boys at school, at least in terms of certain key academic measures. At the time there was something of a 'moral panic', with some sectors of the press suggesting that the situation had reached 'crisis point' and that there was a need to re-focus equal opportunities to redress the balance for boys.
Within the project, this debate has been situated, however, within the much broader context of a post-industrial economy, where those who leave school with few qualifications, whether male or female, have limited opportunities in today's labour market. The research began initially in 1994, with a concern to explore the parameters and reasons behind the apparent 'under-achievement' among boys in English schools. Funded by Homerton College, Cambridge, the first phase of the early research focused on one school, developing in the second phase to use questionnaires and focus group interviews in fifteen state secondary schools across East Anglia. Between 2001 and 2005 the Raising Boys' Achievement project was funded by the Department for Education and Skills, and involved an intensive period of fieldwork in around sixty English schools, both primary and secondary, across a range of socio-economic areas.
While a key aim of the project was to identify strategies which aimed to raise achievement in schools, it did so within a gender relational approach, recognising diverse constructions of masculinity and feminity and questioning taken-for-granted concepts such as 'under-achievement'. The findings of such a project have made a widely acknowledged contribution to educational research, made explicit, for example, in an invitation to present the outcomes to a specially-convened three-day conference at the University of Alaska in May 2005, and at the European Conference on Educational Research in Crete in 2004. The research has also contributed to Geography in two key areas. Firstly, it has been apparent that many of the issues associated with 'under-achievement' are related to tensions between the culture of the school and images of masculinity held in the local community and wider society, with boys' construction of masculinity as competitive, macho and 'laddish' resulting in their gradual alienation from school as they seek to position themselves as 'hard' and 'cool'. This was particularly the case among white working-class boys in schools, for example, in inner city Manchester and in inner London boroughs.
The second key contribution has been methodological, with a commitment to process as well as outcome: how the conclusions emerged was as important as the actual findings themselves. Closely allied to this was an emphasis on relationships - between representatives from groups of schools who worked together, between each group and its link researcher, between representatives across groups, between members of the research team and between researchers and the subjects of their research. The importance of time to establish trust and productive working relationships was crucial to the success of the project. Finally was the emphasis on the pupils themselves, which involved not just listening to them but engaging with them, being interested in them and helping to ensure that their perspectives were valued and taken into consideration in the schools' own evaluations of project initiatives.
This research project has led to keynote presentations at: the Commonwealth Education Ministers Conference, Edinburgh (2003); the Council of Europe Network on Gender Mainstreaming Conference, Strasbourg (2004); a specially convened 2-day conference, University of Alaska (2005); and, in 2006, international conferences organised by Vhto (National organisation of Women in Higher Technical Education) and Universum bij het Plaform Techniek (the Dutch Education Ministry) at the University of Utrecht; FoU i praksis, University of Trondheim, Norway; and the European Union Conference on Men's Contribution to Gender Equality, Dublin.
Publications
Younger, M. and Warrington, M. 2006 Would Harry and Hermione Have Done Better in Single-Sex Classes? A Review of Single-Sex Teaching in Coeducational Secondary Schools in the United Kingdom, American Educational Research Journal 43.4: 579-620
Warrington, M. and Younger M. 2006 Raising Boys' Achievement in Primary Schools: an holistic approach, Maidenhead: Open University Press
Warrington, M. and Younger, M. 2006 Working on the inside: discourses, dilemmas and decisions, Gender and Education 18.3: 265-280
Younger, M. and Warrington, M. 2005 Raising Boys' Achievement in Secondary Schools: Issues, Dilemmas and Opportunities, Maidenhead: Open University Press
Younger, M. and Warrington, M. 2005 Raising Boys' Achievement, London; Department for Education and Skills, Research Report 636
Warrington, M. 2003 'We decided to give it a twirl': Single-Sex Teaching in English Comprehensive Schools, Gender and Education 15.4, 339-350
Warrington, M., Younger, M. and McLellan, R. 2003 Under-achieving boys in English primary schools? Curriculum Journal 14.2, 184-206
Younger, M. and Warrington, M. 2002 'Single-sex teaching in a co-educational comprehensive school in England: an evaluation based upon students' performance and classroom interactions' British Educational Research Journal 28.3, 353-374
Younger, M., Warrington, M. and McLellan, R. 2002 The 'Problem' of 'Under-achieving Boys': some responses from English secondary schools, School Leadership and Management 22.4: 387-403
Warrington, M. and Younger, M. 2001 'Single-sex Classes and Equal Opportunities for Girls and Boys: Perspectives through time from a mixed comprehensive school in England', Oxford Review of Education 27.3, 339-356
Warrington, M., Younger M. and Williams, J. 2000 'Student Attitudes, Image and the Gender Gap', British Educational Research Journal 26.3, 393-407
Warrington, M. and Younger, M. 2000 'The Other Side of the Gender Gap' Gender and Education 12.4, 493-508
Younger, M. and Warrington, M. 1999 'He's such a nice man, but he's so boring, you have to really make a conscious effort to learn': the views of Gemma, Daniel and their contemporaries on teacher quality and effectiveness, Educational Review 51.3, 231-241
Younger, M., Warrington, M. and Williams, J. 1999 'The Gender Gap and Classroom Interactions: Reality and Rhetoric?' British Journal of Sociology of Education 20.3, 325-341
Warrington, M. and Younger, M. 1999 'Perspectives on the Gender Gap in English Secondary Schools', Research Papers in Education 14.1, 51-77
Warrington, M. and Younger, M. 1996 'Goals, Expectations and Motivation: some observations on boys' underachievement at GCSE', Curriculum, 17.2, 80-93
Younger, M. and Warrington, M. 1996 'Differential Achievement of Girls and Boys at GCSE', British Journal of Sociology of Education 17.3, 299-313
Younger, M. and Warrington, M. 1996 'Gender and Achievement: the debate at GCSE', Education Review 10.1, 21-27
Are girls cleverer than boys?
Daily Mail, 16/12/2004
Commentators' views on one of the most persistent debates about modern education.
Statistics show that girls out-perform boys at all Key Stages. Schools Minister Stephen Twigg is looking for ways in which we can help boys to catch up. And commentators are predicting that women like Marjorie Scardino, CEO of Pearson publishing and the first woman to head a FTSE100 firm will soon be the rule rather than the exception. But are girls actually cleverer, or are they simply better at exams?
Jenni Murray, broadcaster, author of That's My Boy!, A Modern Parent's Guide To Raising A Happy And Confident Son and mother of two boys, asks: 'Why do we continue to perpetuate this myth that girls are brighter than boys? It achieves nothing positive. It merely redefines the battle lines in the sex war when we should be doing everything possible to draw up peace treaties.'
'All the serious academic studies to which I referred for my book point to the unreliable statistical analysis that's pushed at us each year as the exam results come out.'
But Barry Sheerman MP, chairman of the education select committee, believes that women are more intelligent than men. 'Some schools have put crazy policies into place - separating girls and boys for English classes,for instance, and giving boys Touching The Void to read - based on a clear assumption that they'll need to know how to survive on a mountainside, while girls read Pride And Prejudice. Pity the poor girl who has an adventurous bent or the boy who would adore Jane Austen,' he says.
'Nor is it true that the brightest girls are taking over professions such as medicine or veterinary science because they're cleverer than boys. I spoke to deans of admissions and principals of colleges who are desperate for more boys to apply. They don't, they tell me, because boys now see those professions as undervalued and underpaid and don't want to do them. And, as a job begins to be seen as a female and caring one, it's automatically downgraded.'
Professor Peter Tymms is director of the curriculum evaluation management centre at the University of Durham, which provides schools and colleges with information based on examination results. He has two sons. He says: 'The question of whether women are brighter than men depends on what we're talking about. If we're talking about the ability to read people's emotions, then women are undoubtedly better than men, on average. Women also tend to be better at verbal skills. This may have an evolutionary basis. As the physically smaller and weaker sex, women might have needed the ability to argue their way out of situations.'
'But men are far better than women at visual, spatial skills. The ability to visualise things in three dimensions favours them. There are, however, other areas where men and women are very similar; in a general maths test, for example, they perform similarly. Yet, if you look at the groups who do the worst at maths, most are men. And if you look at those who do the very best, it is also men who dominate.'
'This is a universal finding, consistent across age groups and countries. We've found it with children starting school and with A-level students. Men's ability levels are more variable, while women's are more homogeneous.'
'What all this tells us, in short, is that men and women are pretty similar in terms of ability. But we tend to focus on the slight differences between them and study them endlessly. This should not be our priority. What we should be concentrating on is trying to improve the educational level of the country in general.'
Geoffrey Wansell is a 59 year old divorcee who lives in central London with his son and daughter. He says: 'Are girls brighter than boys? On the surface you might think so, but I'm not so sure. My daughter-Molly, now 21, certainly got better-A-level results than my son Dan, who's 23 -- three As, in fact -- but he was every bit as pleased with his slightly less exalted collection, and set off happily for the Edinburgh College of Art, where he is now taking a second degree. My daughter, by contrast, went to London University, struggled to settle down, and changed her course after her first year.'
'And that's my point. Girls may perform better in examinations than boys -- but that success doesn't always translate into happiness, or achievement. In fact my suspicion is that, as time passes, boys develop more emotional intelligence -- and the capacity to cope with the complexities of life -- than girls.'
'Girls certainly work harder, but they can also become much more emotional, whizzing ahead at one moment, in despair the next. By comparison, boys are slower, and lazier, but they tend to stick at it, and gradually overtake their female companions.'
'That was certainly the wisdom when I was a teenager in the Fifties, and I'm pretty sure that's still the case today. But we should celebrate the fact that girls are now acknowledged as being every bit as bright as boys. We've come a long way in the past two decades.'
'In the early Eighties, I can vividly remember visiting a well-known prep school, and finding all the girls sitting at the back of the classroom. They'd been sent there by the male master, who believed they wouldn't need the history he was teaching the boys at the front. He didn't quite say: 'They'll only be housewives anyway', but he came perilously close. Thank goodness that attitude has disappeared, and good riddance to it. No one could be more in favour than I am of making sure girls get every bit as many educational and professional opportunities as boys.'
'It's just that I'm not sure they are naturally more intelligent. The boys will almost certainly overtake them in the end - and I don't think anything will ever stop them.'
Dr Pat Spungin is founder of Raisingkids.co.uk, one of the UK's leading websites for parents. A senior lecturer in child psychology, she taught at Middlesex University and has one son and two daughters. She says: 'It's definitely true that girls are outperforming boys at school. It's not because they're brighter but simply because GCSE and A-levels all play to girls' natural strengths. The simple truth is that you can't separate intellectual from social and emotional development. All three are interlinked.'
'Girls' verbal skills are far superior to boys'. Little girls speak earlier than boys and are more articulate. As literacy skills are the basis of all the Arts subjects, such as History and English, and, even to an extent, the science too, it has a ripple effect on their success at school.'
'Far from evening out the discrepancies, recent changes to the educational system play even more to girls' natural strengths. Exam questions where the candidate has to 'think' himself into the mind of a 13-year-old servant in a Medieval baronial hall or offer agony aunt-style advice to a Shakespearian character all need empathy. Boys are immediately at a disadvantage. Girls are also happier to put in the extra time to memorise information so they can produce the short, punchy answers examiners want.'
Girls mature faster. They are ready to settle down at senior school and tackle a more complex curriculum. At 11, boys are embarking on the whirlwind of puberty and are more interested in messing around than working hard. Natural skills, which have nothing to do with brain power, carry girls through at school. It's hardly surprising they outshine boys.'
'So what's really sad is that we aren't doing enough to help girls succeed once they leave school. They are inclined to lag behind at university. Boys are more likely to be bolder thinkers. They will take that extra step and think laterally, and they reap the rewards. Our school system needs to encourage girls to think more boldly and be confident enough to take short cuts. Girls are capable of giving much more at university and in the workplace.'
Baroness Susan Greenfield is a professor of pharmacology at Oxford and the first female director of the Royal Institution of Great Britain. She doesn't have any children. She says: 'I don't believe women are necessarily brighter than men, but I definitely believe women are only now acquiring the confidence to show just how bright they are. I'm convinced that being bright isn't just about having a huge IQ. Brightness is made up of a complex range of skills - stating your case logically, having the courage to disagree and say so confidently, asking questions, being persistent, seeing connections between different things, not taking No for an answer, not being embarrassed to admit you're wrong. Women have at least their fair share of all these talents. But most of us still don't have the confidence to believe in ourselves or show just how bright we are.'
'We have been dogged by low selfesteem, and that has held us back. After all, a woman can be the most intelligent person on the planet, but who will ever know if she hasn't got the confidence to express her views?'
It's a huge generalisation, but men are much more likely to push themselves forward. They are likely to appear brighter - simply because they're more self-assured and confident. Most women in high positions still feel they've got there by some fluke and that, one day, they'll be found out. Every single professional woman I know suffers from this so-called 'impostor syndrome.' How many men suffer the same anguish? Very few, I imagine.'
I don't believe there's such a thing as a male or a female brain. The only broad distinction is that the motorway that connects the two hemispheres is denser in women's brains. There's a theory that this explains why women find it easier to ' multitask' than men.
But I do believe that your expectation of what you can do defines how much you achieve. If someone keeps telling you you're stupid or will never achieve as much as a man, it affects what you accomplish.
Dr John Marincowitz is headmaster of Queen Elizabeth's School, Barnet, North London, where this year the 127 sixth-form boys passed 91 per cent of their A-levels at grades A or B. Dr Marincowitz has a son and a daughter. He says: 'It's unhelpful to analyse performance along gender lines. It's much more constructive to consider whether young people are more or less motivated to achieve - that is what makes the difference. In my view, when boys are motivated they do as well, if not better, than girls. It is this motivation, not their ability, that is the key.'
Queen Elizabeth's is a boys' grammar school, yet we are consistently in the top five per cent in the country's league tables. The boys at my school regularly outperform girls of a similar ability -- girls in both the state and private sectors. Teenage boys don't apply themselves just because they are told to by their teachers and parents. They only do it when they understand and internalise the relationship between what they're doing at school and what they want to do later on.
The ethos and culture of my school supports this. The boys have a curriculum that is relevant and goals that are attainable. They do work experience and extra-curricular activities that expose them to the world of work from Year 10 onwards. They have an image of themselves in the future and understand what they need to achieve and why. We live in a world where people are chosen for jobs on merit. Boys need to see this.
In addition, boys do better in single-sex schools. In mixed schools, outgoing, sociable characters can be sucked into acting like Jack-the-lad in order to gain status. When they don't have a female audience, there's no need to perform or misbehave.
All young people go through a self-conscious period, when they form new ideas and try new things. This is far easier for boys to get through without girls giggling or undermining their confidence further.
Commentators' views on one of the most persistent debates about modern education.
Statistics show that girls out-perform boys at all Key Stages. Schools Minister Stephen Twigg is looking for ways in which we can help boys to catch up. And commentators are predicting that women like Marjorie Scardino, CEO of Pearson publishing and the first woman to head a FTSE100 firm will soon be the rule rather than the exception. But are girls actually cleverer, or are they simply better at exams?
Jenni Murray, broadcaster, author of That's My Boy!, A Modern Parent's Guide To Raising A Happy And Confident Son and mother of two boys, asks: 'Why do we continue to perpetuate this myth that girls are brighter than boys? It achieves nothing positive. It merely redefines the battle lines in the sex war when we should be doing everything possible to draw up peace treaties.'
'All the serious academic studies to which I referred for my book point to the unreliable statistical analysis that's pushed at us each year as the exam results come out.'
But Barry Sheerman MP, chairman of the education select committee, believes that women are more intelligent than men. 'Some schools have put crazy policies into place - separating girls and boys for English classes,for instance, and giving boys Touching The Void to read - based on a clear assumption that they'll need to know how to survive on a mountainside, while girls read Pride And Prejudice. Pity the poor girl who has an adventurous bent or the boy who would adore Jane Austen,' he says.
'Nor is it true that the brightest girls are taking over professions such as medicine or veterinary science because they're cleverer than boys. I spoke to deans of admissions and principals of colleges who are desperate for more boys to apply. They don't, they tell me, because boys now see those professions as undervalued and underpaid and don't want to do them. And, as a job begins to be seen as a female and caring one, it's automatically downgraded.'
Professor Peter Tymms is director of the curriculum evaluation management centre at the University of Durham, which provides schools and colleges with information based on examination results. He has two sons. He says: 'The question of whether women are brighter than men depends on what we're talking about. If we're talking about the ability to read people's emotions, then women are undoubtedly better than men, on average. Women also tend to be better at verbal skills. This may have an evolutionary basis. As the physically smaller and weaker sex, women might have needed the ability to argue their way out of situations.'
'But men are far better than women at visual, spatial skills. The ability to visualise things in three dimensions favours them. There are, however, other areas where men and women are very similar; in a general maths test, for example, they perform similarly. Yet, if you look at the groups who do the worst at maths, most are men. And if you look at those who do the very best, it is also men who dominate.'
'This is a universal finding, consistent across age groups and countries. We've found it with children starting school and with A-level students. Men's ability levels are more variable, while women's are more homogeneous.'
'What all this tells us, in short, is that men and women are pretty similar in terms of ability. But we tend to focus on the slight differences between them and study them endlessly. This should not be our priority. What we should be concentrating on is trying to improve the educational level of the country in general.'
Geoffrey Wansell is a 59 year old divorcee who lives in central London with his son and daughter. He says: 'Are girls brighter than boys? On the surface you might think so, but I'm not so sure. My daughter-Molly, now 21, certainly got better-A-level results than my son Dan, who's 23 -- three As, in fact -- but he was every bit as pleased with his slightly less exalted collection, and set off happily for the Edinburgh College of Art, where he is now taking a second degree. My daughter, by contrast, went to London University, struggled to settle down, and changed her course after her first year.'
'And that's my point. Girls may perform better in examinations than boys -- but that success doesn't always translate into happiness, or achievement. In fact my suspicion is that, as time passes, boys develop more emotional intelligence -- and the capacity to cope with the complexities of life -- than girls.'
'Girls certainly work harder, but they can also become much more emotional, whizzing ahead at one moment, in despair the next. By comparison, boys are slower, and lazier, but they tend to stick at it, and gradually overtake their female companions.'
'That was certainly the wisdom when I was a teenager in the Fifties, and I'm pretty sure that's still the case today. But we should celebrate the fact that girls are now acknowledged as being every bit as bright as boys. We've come a long way in the past two decades.'
'In the early Eighties, I can vividly remember visiting a well-known prep school, and finding all the girls sitting at the back of the classroom. They'd been sent there by the male master, who believed they wouldn't need the history he was teaching the boys at the front. He didn't quite say: 'They'll only be housewives anyway', but he came perilously close. Thank goodness that attitude has disappeared, and good riddance to it. No one could be more in favour than I am of making sure girls get every bit as many educational and professional opportunities as boys.'
'It's just that I'm not sure they are naturally more intelligent. The boys will almost certainly overtake them in the end - and I don't think anything will ever stop them.'
Dr Pat Spungin is founder of Raisingkids.co.uk, one of the UK's leading websites for parents. A senior lecturer in child psychology, she taught at Middlesex University and has one son and two daughters. She says: 'It's definitely true that girls are outperforming boys at school. It's not because they're brighter but simply because GCSE and A-levels all play to girls' natural strengths. The simple truth is that you can't separate intellectual from social and emotional development. All three are interlinked.'
'Girls' verbal skills are far superior to boys'. Little girls speak earlier than boys and are more articulate. As literacy skills are the basis of all the Arts subjects, such as History and English, and, even to an extent, the science too, it has a ripple effect on their success at school.'
'Far from evening out the discrepancies, recent changes to the educational system play even more to girls' natural strengths. Exam questions where the candidate has to 'think' himself into the mind of a 13-year-old servant in a Medieval baronial hall or offer agony aunt-style advice to a Shakespearian character all need empathy. Boys are immediately at a disadvantage. Girls are also happier to put in the extra time to memorise information so they can produce the short, punchy answers examiners want.'
Girls mature faster. They are ready to settle down at senior school and tackle a more complex curriculum. At 11, boys are embarking on the whirlwind of puberty and are more interested in messing around than working hard. Natural skills, which have nothing to do with brain power, carry girls through at school. It's hardly surprising they outshine boys.'
'So what's really sad is that we aren't doing enough to help girls succeed once they leave school. They are inclined to lag behind at university. Boys are more likely to be bolder thinkers. They will take that extra step and think laterally, and they reap the rewards. Our school system needs to encourage girls to think more boldly and be confident enough to take short cuts. Girls are capable of giving much more at university and in the workplace.'
Baroness Susan Greenfield is a professor of pharmacology at Oxford and the first female director of the Royal Institution of Great Britain. She doesn't have any children. She says: 'I don't believe women are necessarily brighter than men, but I definitely believe women are only now acquiring the confidence to show just how bright they are. I'm convinced that being bright isn't just about having a huge IQ. Brightness is made up of a complex range of skills - stating your case logically, having the courage to disagree and say so confidently, asking questions, being persistent, seeing connections between different things, not taking No for an answer, not being embarrassed to admit you're wrong. Women have at least their fair share of all these talents. But most of us still don't have the confidence to believe in ourselves or show just how bright we are.'
'We have been dogged by low selfesteem, and that has held us back. After all, a woman can be the most intelligent person on the planet, but who will ever know if she hasn't got the confidence to express her views?'
It's a huge generalisation, but men are much more likely to push themselves forward. They are likely to appear brighter - simply because they're more self-assured and confident. Most women in high positions still feel they've got there by some fluke and that, one day, they'll be found out. Every single professional woman I know suffers from this so-called 'impostor syndrome.' How many men suffer the same anguish? Very few, I imagine.'
I don't believe there's such a thing as a male or a female brain. The only broad distinction is that the motorway that connects the two hemispheres is denser in women's brains. There's a theory that this explains why women find it easier to ' multitask' than men.
But I do believe that your expectation of what you can do defines how much you achieve. If someone keeps telling you you're stupid or will never achieve as much as a man, it affects what you accomplish.
Dr John Marincowitz is headmaster of Queen Elizabeth's School, Barnet, North London, where this year the 127 sixth-form boys passed 91 per cent of their A-levels at grades A or B. Dr Marincowitz has a son and a daughter. He says: 'It's unhelpful to analyse performance along gender lines. It's much more constructive to consider whether young people are more or less motivated to achieve - that is what makes the difference. In my view, when boys are motivated they do as well, if not better, than girls. It is this motivation, not their ability, that is the key.'
Queen Elizabeth's is a boys' grammar school, yet we are consistently in the top five per cent in the country's league tables. The boys at my school regularly outperform girls of a similar ability -- girls in both the state and private sectors. Teenage boys don't apply themselves just because they are told to by their teachers and parents. They only do it when they understand and internalise the relationship between what they're doing at school and what they want to do later on.
The ethos and culture of my school supports this. The boys have a curriculum that is relevant and goals that are attainable. They do work experience and extra-curricular activities that expose them to the world of work from Year 10 onwards. They have an image of themselves in the future and understand what they need to achieve and why. We live in a world where people are chosen for jobs on merit. Boys need to see this.
In addition, boys do better in single-sex schools. In mixed schools, outgoing, sociable characters can be sucked into acting like Jack-the-lad in order to gain status. When they don't have a female audience, there's no need to perform or misbehave.
All young people go through a self-conscious period, when they form new ideas and try new things. This is far easier for boys to get through without girls giggling or undermining their confidence further.
How boys miss teacher's reprimand
BBC News science reporter, Dublin, 8 September 2005
By Jonathan Amos
It puts some numbers behind what teachers have long thought .
The naughty boy at primary school who continues to muck about even after being told off may have completely missed his teacher's displeasure.
The suggestion comes from new research that gives scientists an insight into the differences in "wiring" in young male and female brains.
It seems many school-entry boys have greater difficulty picking up on some emotions, such as anger.
Understanding these differences could be useful in class, scientists said.
"If teachers attempt to control boys by subtle means, such as raised eyebrows, and the boys ignore these cues, it may be that they simply are not able to read them and decode them accurately," explained Professor David Skuse, whose team at the Institute of Child Health in London conducted the research.
"It's not that they are being wilfully oppositional," he told the British Association's Festival of Science, which this year is being held in Dublin, Ireland.
Teachers know
The study on 600 children between the ages of six and 17 was actually undertaken to investigate aspects of autism, a predominantly male condition.
The institute hopes eventually to find the genetic factors that lead more boys than girls into this disorder.
The experiments used a series of computer-based tasks that required children to interpret emotional expressions on faces - happiness, sadness, disgust, anger, fear and surprise.
They also had to remember faces and to follow eye gaze - the sorts of abilities often found wanting in autistic individuals.
The results showed that although there were early sex differences, with girls doing significantly better than boys at the time of school-entry, these differences reduced over time. And by late adolescence, they were all but gone.
The differences at school-entry were specifically to do with the facial expressions tasks.
"At six years, 70% of boys are below the mean for girls; so in other words, 70% of boys are worse than 50% of girls," Professor Skuse explained.
"It means there are a lot of boys at school-entry who are very poor at differentiating other people's emotions from their facial expressions.
"This perhaps wouldn't come as any surprise to teachers to whom I've spoken about this finding - they say boys are less socially aware when they enter school - but I think this is the first objective evidence that there is a substantial difference between the sexes in the ability to read these emotions."
Difficult teenagers
One fascinating observation was that both boys and girls in their early teenage years experienced a dip in their ability to perform some of the tasks.
This, Professor Skuse speculated, was probably because their brains were being rewired at that time.
But he raised the suggestion - slightly tongue in cheek - it could explain the "Kevin factor", a reference to the unruly behaviour of the TV teenage character made famous by comedian Harry Enfield.
"I'm suggesting in a fairly light-hearted way that the social ineptness of early adolescence, the seeming inability to understand the expressions of sadness and anger, would appear to be just a function of the development of their brain at that time.
"It's not a cultural phenomenon, I suggest; it's a real biological phenomenon from which they, fortunately, recover." The research is to be published in the Journal of Applied Statistics.
Boys at school: Long climb back to the top
The Independent, 2 April 2007
Experts have been wringing their hands at the underachievement of boys. But now a group of schools in Yorkshire is showing the world how to kick-start their enthusiasm for learning.
Hilary Wilce reports
Boys don't do well in school. They work less hard than girls, act up in class, and fall down in exams. Their underperformance hampers their life chances and blights society - disaffected youths are the main perpetrators of violence and anti-social behaviour. Yet to many teachers and parents their failure is an enigma. What can you do, they shrug. They're boys.
The answer is: a lot. And fast. In fact, a city-wide project is proving that we already know exactly what to do to get boys going. And when it is done, results show up almost immediately.
Eighteen months ago a group of Bradford schools set out to raise boys' school marks, behaviour and aspirations. A pilot group of 22 primary schools began the work, and 18 of them improved boys' attainments within the year, with 13 seeing an average increase of 5 per cent in literacy and 10 per cent in numeracy in national test scores.
Teachers are also seeing a real turnaround in boys' attitudes, and boys are reporting changes. "I feel a lot better about everything," says Grant Steel, 14, whose secondary school is one of the nearly half of all Bradford schools now involved in the project. "I'm much more positive about what I can do now."
A number of separate actions are fuelling the change, but behind them all is the realisation that many of the things that motivate boys have been stripped out of schools with recent reforms. Girls have stoically adapted to the changes, but boys have often lost the plot.
"Over the past 15 years school has become a more narrow and drier kind of affair for some pupils," says Chris Ford, director of the city's Excellence in Cities Action Zone, which is running the project. "The pressure is all on literacy and numeracy. There is less time for a broader curriculum. But if you have a rich curriculum, hands-on learning, a rich life beyond class, and behaviour policies that are firm and plain, then boys and girls achieve equally."
There are, he says, about a dozen small things schools can do, "but when you have got them all going on, the overall culture of the schools shifts and you see reactions very, very quickly, usually within a couple of terms."
Boys tend to have high energy levels and need active lessons and lively sports programmes. They like to be given good reasons for doing things, enjoy practical tasks and often prefer non-fiction reading. They are uncomfortable with feelings, can find it hard to express themselves, and need people to understand that underneath their rowdy behaviour can lurk very low self-confidence.
However, give them firm behaviour boundaries, clearly structured work, and a sense of respect and attention, and they not only flourish, but relish the feeling of belonging to an institution they are proud of. "Once a school gets boys on board, they become really strong ambassadors," says Chris Ford. "They are proud to wear the shirt."
The project is training teachers to be more aware of these needs and encouraging schools to draw up action plans. But there is no magic template. What schools do varies according to their circumstances.
The project has brought in expert tutors, such as Gary Wilson, an education consultant who has spent years supporting boys' achievement as an adviser in Kirklees, and has encouraged teachers to think about how to develop boys' reading, writing, and emotional literacy.
However, Ford stresses that boys are not "a problem", nor do they all fit the stereotype. The Bradford work addresses broad tendencies, and the things it advocates are good for girls, too. "What this is all about is offering differentiated provision according to the learning needs of pupils. I would like to see it as a normal part of any school's development plan."
At Shirley Manor Primary School, learning is visibly lively and active. Nursery children - girls as well as boys - climb trees and hang from branches. In the adjoining playground, older children are enthusiastically acting out being Viking berserkers, while Year 5 children are using digital cameras to make their own cartoons. Staff have been trained to think about how to communicate better with boys. "You need to use far more empathy and get their full attention. For example, you might crouch down and say, 'I understand you're upset...' and talk it through, and then say 'So do you think it might be a good idea to say sorry?'," explains assistant head Tracy Annal. When it comes to developing literacy, "Boys have to have a reason for what they are doing, and you have to do it in a practical way."
Behaviour policies are firm and fair, team spirit is fostered, and an awards system gives children merits for doing well. Boys are also encouraged to be playground mentors, helping children who are feeling lonely or who are bullied.
"I became a mentor because I'd been bullied," says Thomas Ramsay, 10. "I like helping other people and it helps if you know what children feel like when it's happening to them."
Teachers say much of their training highlighted what they already knew, but making it more explicit has brought results - the school's national test benchmark English results went up by 2 per cent in 2005, and maths results went up by 6 per cent. Gillian Wilson, a Year 5 teacher, says that as a result of the project she has "changed it all, thrown it all out" and brought in more drama and role play to her lessons, changed her choice of books, and found new ways to teach literacy. "This has really developed me as a teacher, and hooked in the boys. Their creative writing is fantastic now!"
Across the city at Salt Grammar School, teachers have been trained in boy-friendly methods and resources, and are seeing test scores go up, although deputy head teacher IanMorrel stresses the importance of making changes subtle and low-profile.
Boys tend to like clear, multipart lessons where they know what they are going to do and how they are going to do it. They prefer active learning and practical tasks to reading and writing, and can be drawn out by direct questioning.
"Boys don't put up their hands in class," points out Morrel. "They tend to think, 'Oh, she's going to answer, so there's no point thinking about it.' But if they know they might be picked, they have to think it through.''
At GCSE, where boys can flounder in the face of large pieces of coursework, teachers now know to "chunk it down" by spelling out clearly what has to be done and encouraging pupils to focus on one thing at a time.
Boys' literacy has been developed through daily quiet reading, increasing the number of boy-friendly library books and library lessons. Librarian Jean Luxford often finds herself buying requested books on sports or motorbikes. "We often have twice as many boys in the library as girls. They have their heads down and are reading!"
The school is supporting capable but underachieving younger pupils. Borderline pupils in years 9, 10 and 11 have been given study support and a programme of activities and visits. They have learnt the importance of evaluating and redrafting work, and taught different methods for revision.
Sixth-formers act as mentors, and the success has been clear. This year almost all the Year 9 pupils hit their maths and science target level, and 61 per cent got one or two grades higher in maths than expected.
Ben Priestley, 13, was "well chuffed" that his results exceeded expectations, and says his geography teacher expects an A* from him at GCSE! "The group wasn't for people who were thick or naughty, just those who needed a bit of oomph putting into them. I knew I could do it. I just didn't know how to express it.
"We did a lot of group work and a lot about how to learn, and about people skills and how to talk to people. I'm a lot more confident now. We were taken to see Imran Khan, and I stood up in front of 500 people and asked a question! I just feel a lot better about everything. Everyone should have this sort of thing."
Mentor Tom Hickey, 17, says he volunteered because he remembers being in the same position at their age and not getting help. "My role in the group was just to answer questions and help them through. But it's helped my skills, too. I'm thinking of being a social worker. And it really works. I'd recommend it to anyone."
Eighteen secondary schools and 59 primary schools are now involved in the project, and their work is beginning to attract widespread interest.
"We have consistent data across all schools. Last year's Sats results were encouraging, and we're getting lots of reports of a calmer atmosphere and of changes in individual behaviour," says Chris Ford. "We're not surprised by what has happened, but we are a bit surprised by the speed of it." What needs to be done now, he says, is to consolidate it and make sure it "sticks" in schools.
"But there's no reason to think this wouldn't work anywhere. After all, we didn't invent it. It's what Ofsted and HMI and other people have been saying for years. All we've done is to take their good advice and turn it into effective practice - but in a way that allows every school to tailor it to its own setting."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)