To What Extent Are Boys Now the 'Failing' Gender in State Schooling?

To what extent are boys now the ‘failing’ gender in state schooling?

The gender gap between boys and girls educational achievement has been the centre of much concern and debate over recent years. Concerns about underachievement had previously been directed towards girls, but their academic achievement has now outstripped boys in most areas. The current situation shows girls are outperforming boys in all subjects except for the single sciences. This change in gender difference has created major concern for politicians, policy makers, teachers, schools, parents, and the pupils themselves. In 2004/05, sixty two per cent of girls in their last year of compulsory education achieved five or more GCSE grades A* to C, compared with fifty two per cent of boys (National Statistics Online, 2006).

The question refers to boys as the ‘failing’ gender. It is fair to say that although they are currently achieving less well at school when compared with girls, they are by no means failing. Boys have improved over the years, just not as much as girls. Therefore they should not be referred to as the ‘failing’ gender, instead it should be understood why the gender gap remains, and how it will be tackled.

This essay will explain the history of gender relations and how it has developed to the current situation; identify explanations for boys’ underachievement involving the role of the school, teacher perceptions and learning styles, and; explore the concept of ‘laddishness’, which appears to be a significant factor in the underachievement of boys.

It is interesting to look at the history of gender differences in education to see how it has developed in order to gain greater understanding of the current situation. Boys and girls were taught together for the first time in the 1960s, with the development of new comprehensive schools. However, opportunities were not equal for both genders in society at this time, and these values were reflected in the school environment. For example, women were expected to get married and look after the children, and men were supposed to be the breadwinners in the family. Boys and girls were treated very differently by teachers, as well as peers and by parents. There were ‘gender specific stereotypical expectations of pupils’ (BARTLETT and BURTON, 2007:61) which were represented by the subjects available to each gender, for example; metal work for boys, and needle work for girls.

Changes to state education began with the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act which became part of British Law in 1975. The legislation expected all schools to provide equal opportunity to all curriculum subjects to pupils of both sexes. Gaine and George (1999) state that this requirement helped towards attaining equal educational opportunities; however, social conditioning meant that boys and girls chose subjects that they perceived to be suitable for their sex. At this time, feminist research was carried out to gather evidence of unequal treatment of girls in schools and their poorer experiences, which led to campaigns for equal opportunities in schools (GAINE and GEORGE, 1999).
The research found sex specific patterns in subject choice, unequal staffing patterns in the school, sex stereotyping in texts, and the unacceptability of certain career choices amongst women (WEINER, 1994) (cited in GAINE and GEORGE, 1999:63). Other feminist research carried out was highly focused on discrimination and marginalisation in education. It was found that differences in gender were emphasised through the separation of genders by uniform differences, different behavioural expectations, and a gender specific curriculum (BARTLETT and BURTON, 2007:162). Female students were shown to have low ambitions, and were advised against choosing ‘male’ subjects, which were perceived to be more essential for employment prospects.

The research led to certain gender issues within the school being highlighted and action was taken. The Equal Opportunities Commission arranged a conference on ‘girl friendly schooling’ (GAINE and GEORGE, 1999:64). As a consequence, national projects were implemented in order to make the curriculum more girl-friendly. In order for the achievement of girls to be raised, Bartlett and Burton (2007) outline the importance of raising awareness, altering attitudes, and increasing ambition; some issues which featured in some of the projects. Smail (2000) identifies the girls into science and technology project (GIST), which was a four year project set up in 1979. GIST explored reasons for girls’ underachievement in science and technology and resulted in teachers being encouraged to develop classroom strategies to improve achievement. Gender Watch was another project, which offered a strategic approach for teachers to monitor gender in all aspects of school life (BARTLETT and BURTON: 2007).

In reality, the underachievement of girls compared to boys was not so alarming. The actual figures showed that girls were outperforming boys in English and Modern Foreign Languages. Girls were also more likely to achieve five or more o-level passes compared to boys. The reason why girls were still perceived as underachieving was that the subjects they chose were considered to be low status, such as home economics. High status subjects, such as science were mostly chosen by boys, and these subjects were valued, and therefore recognised (FRANCIS, 2000).

The major and most significant change in education came about when the Conservative government came into power in 1979 and brought about the implementation of the National Curriculum. The National Curriculum ensured that boys and girls studied the same subjects until the age of 16. This, along with the previous strategies implemented, had significant impact on the achievement of girls. Another significant change implemented by the Conservative government was the introduction of league tables at GCSE and A level, which are used to measure overall school performance. This made the differences in achievement of boys and girls more obvious than ever. Over the years, league tables have shown improvements in the performance of both boys and girls, but recent years have seen the improvement of girls to be greater than that of boys. It is interesting to look at comparisons in each subject, which show that girls are outperforming boys in all subjects apart from the single sciences, when taken separately (National Statistics Online, 2006).

There is now a wider subject base for both boys and girls. However, it has been noted a gender specific pattern still exists when it comes to pre- and post- sixteen subject choices. Boys and girls have continued the pattern with their subject preferences. Younger and Warrington (1996) found that science was the most unpopular with girls, and languages the most unpopular with boys. This is reflected in subject choice at A-level. Croxford (2000) (cited in HILROM, 2001:195) found 200,000 boys take English at GCSE because of the National Curriculum, but only 15,000 choose to continue the subject at A-level. These figures do suggest a dislike of the subject, but it also needs to be taken into account the number of boys who choose to continue studying post-sixteen. Student perceptions of subjects could be factors in achievement in the subject. The labelling of subjects as being masculine or feminine remains evident, and affects the attitudes of boys and girls to specific subjects. HIROM (2001) claims boys regard English as a ‘female’ subject, which is shown in their attitudes towards literacy. Jordan (1995) (cited in HIROM, 2001:197) argues the reason boys are less willing readers is related to the meaning of masculinity which ‘prioritise action and daring over reflection and empathy’. The labelling of certain subjects may be connected with the way in which they are taught, as they are likely to be more appropriate to either boys’ or girls’ learning styles.

The fact that girls were shown to be outperforming boys created a moral panic in the media. It is interesting that there was no major reaction when it was girls who were perceived as falling behind, although this could be because there is greater media influence in modern times. There should have been a celebration that overall results had improved, especially in girl’s achievement. Considering the discrimination that has been directed towards girls over the years, the improvement should have been recognised, but instead a moral panic began (HIROM, 2001). Because of this, attention was shifted from methods to promote girls’ learning and onto approaches needed to increase boys’ achievement.

The underachievement of boys has been described as one of the ‘biggest challenges facing schools and society’ (WRAGG, 1997) (Cited in HIROM, 2001: 187). Schools were informed to recognise this gender gap and to create strategies to overcome it. According to Connolly (2004), this was another unnecessary reaction. Although girl’s improvement appears to be greater, a closer look at the statistics show that it is only by a small amount, and is not significant enough to deserve the panic or attention brought to it.
It is also interesting that despite the panic over the perceived ‘failure’ of boys, they continue to do extremely well in higher education. More males gain first class degrees and continue to study at a post graduate level than women (Epstein et al, 1998).

There are many explanations which attempt to identify reasons for why girls are outperforming boys. The explanations relate to stereotypes, teaching styles, physical differences, and masculinities. A significant factor in the gender gap is the feminisation of the classroom, which has made education more welcoming to girls, and intimidating for boys. This, of course, was not the intention, but it is the outcome, and it is affecting the achievement of boys in an extremely negative way.

It is important to establish the physical differences between boys and girls in terms of learning ability, as there are clear gender differences between boys and girls which suggest why boys cannot learn in the same way girls do. There has been a vast amount of research into the ways in which male and female brains function. The main difference that has been found relevant to the way they learn is that boys have greater spatial skills, and girls have greater verbal skills (MOIR, 1998). This affects the way in which boys learn, as the school has been feminised, and teachers have a focus on verbal teaching strategies. This could explain why boys have a preference for scientific subjects and mathematics (use of spatial ability), and for girls a preference for languages (use of verbal ability), as previously noted. The development of assessment has been said to favour girls with the increased extent of coursework at GCSE (DAVIES, 1994). Boys are likely to do better when they are challenged, and so it could be suggested that they do better in exams (MOIR, 1998). Boys are competitive, and would prefer competitive tests, rather than continuous assessment. Girls do better in coursework, as they are more organised, and so from this it could be suggested the curriculum favours girls.

The fact that both genders have different ways of learning effectively means that teaching strategies have equal possibility to isolate and de-motivate both girls and boys. It has been argued that teaching strategies have a tendency to de-motivate boys, but it is also the teacher’s perceptions and attitudes relating to gender that can have an effect on learning and ultimately achievement (MOIR, 1998). Jones and Myhill (2004) state teacher’s perceptions of pupils have changed, and boys are associated with underachievement, and girls with high achievement, which reflects the way which teachers respond to them. Stereotypes concerning both genders often represent a clear divide between girls and boys. Generalisations are established about either side of this division, and become ‘diametrically opposed’, for example boy and girl, or loud and quiet. These stereotypes can become embedded in teachers and have a negative effect on pupils in terms of the way in which they are taught. A study by Younger et al (1999) found that teachers did acknowledge individual differences between girls and boys, but claimed ‘valid’ generalisations could be made about gender. Many teachers believed it was highly important to treat boys and girls equally in the classroom, but explained difficulties in embodying this belief due to the dynamics of the classroom, and were aware of the possibility that they do react differently to boys and girls. These generalisations about boys and girls created expectations amongst teachers about how they will behave. For example, the stereotype that boys misbehave requires the need for teachers to watch them more carefully. However, this can have a detrimental effect on pupils, as individual differences occur between and within the genders, which are not always taken into account. In terms of the school environment, for example, all boys are not disruptive, and a majority of girls are not quiet.

The behaviour of boys in the classroom is perceived to be disruptive and detracts from the learning opportunities of girls (Younger et al, 1999). However, it does need to be mentioned that it is only a small number of boys who dominate the classroom time. In 1995, it was found ninety per cent of the 1,445 children excluded from primary school were boys (MOIR, 1998:127), which could reinforce the stereotype that boys are more disobedient. According to Moir (1998), the main issue is that boys are bored at school, as there is nothing to excite them in what they believe to be a female curriculum in a feminised institution.

Due to the performance of girls being higher than that of boys, it could be assumed that teachers do not focus on boys, giving reason for their results to be lower. Research into the treatment of girls however, suggests otherwise. Trophy and Good (1970) conducted a study which found girls were acknowledged only when they volunteered to answer a question, they were never asked. Even then, their offers were not as likely to be taken up as male volunteers were. Spender (1982) found girls were less valued than boys. Kelly (1986) found girls received less criticism but also less instruction; and boys received more academic and behavioural criticism. It has also been found teachers enjoy teaching boys because they believe they are more creative than girls (STANWORTH, 1983). In response to boys dominating the classroom, girls respond by supporting each other with their work, and getting on quietly. In a review of studies, Hiram (2001) explains how teachers respond differently to girls and boys. It is argued that teachers give more attention time to boys, due to them being typically more disruptive and demanding of attention. This could be seen as positive to their learning, however, most of this attention time is focused on behaviour rather than learning. Younger et al (1999) agree, and state that girls tend to ask for more help, and seek reassurance, which takes more teacher interaction, but in a way more likely to raise their achievement.

Other research shows girls receive more positive attention and support, and teachers are more tolerant with girls. Head (1996) states teachers see girls as self learners by spending more time on coursework and plan revision more carefully, and therefore do not need so much attention. They are also perceived to be school orientated with the ability to foresee and conform to the demands of the school. Girls appear to have a more ‘realistic grasp’ of what is required at GCSE (YOUNGER and WARRINGTON, 1996), and therefore do not need as much attention time as boys. In contrast, teachers see boys as presenting an opposite image; being unorganised, de-motivated, and not prioritising school work. Boys are often shown to be easily distracted, boisterous, vocal and less mature than girls. It has been suggested many teachers would state boys are harder to teach and harder to control.

The role of the school is significant in the reproduction of gender inequality, and can be interpreted as a possible factor in boy’s lack of success. Although not solely responsible for the gender gap, the school can influence some issues, such as the quality of teaching and learning taking place within it. Gender inequality is apparent in the organisation of the school, the organisation of classrooms, the management of lessons, children’s experience of the curriculum, and in activities and actions of the teacher (MEASOR and SIKES, 1992:53). Within the classroom, gender can be employed unnecessarily as an organisational device, such as lining up separately in the playground. Measor and Sikes (1992:55) claim that in secondary schools female students are often encouraged to compete against male students as a lesson activity. The element of competition has been suggested to be effective in boy’s learning. However, it does have a negative effect on gender divisions which are reinforced in these practices, when co-operation between the genders should instead be encouraged.

Given the evidence suggesting teaching strategies are not effective for both genders, it could be argued that both boys and girls would learn more effectively if they were be taught separately. Moir (1998) states that single sex schools show significant improvement in individual results. It is stated that ninety per cent of the most academically successful state schools are single sex schools. In sixth-form, boys in single sex schools achieve twenty per cent better than boys in mixed sex education. However, social class is a major factor here, as single sex schools are generally available to middle class pupils and are often selective in their admissions. This means that other factors, such as parental income or ability of pupils, are involved.

Benn and Chitty (1996) found that girls’ comprehensive schools achieve better examination results than mixed comprehensive schools, despite teaching students of the lower class. It could be suggested that boys and girls should be taught separately and in different styles for some subjects, such as the three core subjects of mathematics, English and science. This would ensure both genders are being taught in ways most appropriate for their learning, and the success rates discussed of single sex schools show it can be effective. This separation has been tested in a study and proved to be a success. The study found improvements in GCSE results in a mixed school that implemented single sex lessons in mathematics and modern foreign languages. Both genders improved, which was found in the number of GCSE grades (A*-C) achieved. In seven years the number of boys who received these grades increased from 68% to 81%, and the number of girls from 68% to 82% (Education Guardian, 2004). These results showed no significant difference between the genders. Possible reasons for this could be due to fewer distractions in the classroom, or more confidence to participate in lessons. The results from this study, as well as the success of single sex schools can argue that girls and boys learn more effectively when taught separately, and more schools should adopt this strategy in order to help improve the achievement of boys.

As aforementioned, the media have a great influence over society and played a big part in the panic surrounding the underachievement of boys. Boys have been identified in different ways; ‘educational failure’, ‘boys will be boys’, ‘poor boys’ with a blame on the ‘failing schools’ (Francis, 2000). There appears to be a perceived external blame for the underachievement of boys, such as the teachers, parents, peers, school, or method of learning, whereas Cohen (1998) points out that when girls were underachieving the blame was perceived as the outcome of internal inadequacies. Boys have been exposed as falling behind and a ‘laddish’ culture has been created by the media to describe boys who are ‘anti-study, against school values which leads to underachievement’ (Bartlett and Burton, 2007:164).

This ‘laddish’ behaviour which some boys entail has often been described as a factor in their underachievement, and it can be argued one of the most significant. Francis (2000) identifies the term ‘lad’ to mean a young man who partakes in activities such as drinking alcohol, behaving disruptively, objectifying women, and ‘having a laugh’. The anti-school values which are apparent in these boys have impeded their progress at school. Educational success at secondary school is seen as non-masculine, which has a negative effect on boy’s learning. Once masculine identity has been established in young boys, it can become maintained and lead to falling expectations and therefore a fall in achievement. Younger and Warrington (1996) found that the key factors involved in the differential achievements between the genders were male attitudes and their concern with image. This affected how boys responded to ‘the academic and authority structure of the school’.

Peer group image has been seen to challenge the relevance of education and the ethos of the school. However, Moir (1996) argues that boys are naturally boisterous and aggressive, and this is enough for them to be labelled as a problem by teachers. It is true to say that ‘boys will be boys’ due to this natural behaviour, but it seems they are unable to act like boys in ‘an increasingly feminised educational system’ (MOIR, 1996:127).

It can be argued that being ‘one of the lads’ is the way that boys are supposed to act, and doing well at school is not recognised in this image. Younger, Warrington and McLellan (2002) state the importance of tackling laddish attitudes in order to improve the academic performance of boys. This culture of boys has been recognised by the government. In 1998, the minister for schools Stephen Byers requested for ‘action strategies to tackle the new ‘laddish anti-school culture’’ (WEINER, ARNOT and DAVID, 1997:8). Younger, Warrington and McLellan (2002) agree, and suggest changes are needed to laddish attitudes and behaviours in order for boys’ performance to improve.

The issue of male underachievement is complicated, which is beyond the field of the school, but it is in the school where the issue needs to be faced. It is understood that it is difficult for teachers, especially those who are inexperienced, as they need to give boys praise and encouragement, without drawing attention to them so that they don’t ‘lose face’. It has become apparent that boys and girls take distinctive and different roles within the classroom concerning enquiry, behaviour and learning. In order for this problem to be faced within the school, classes need to be organised according to children’s needs.

It can be argued that the most effective change would be for pupils to be taught separately for certain subjects, as previously discussed. In order for this change to be effective, teachers need to be better trained in teaching both genders, and be more aware of the gender gap and how the achievement of boys can be raised. Another change that could be made to raise the achievement of boys is to reduce class sizes in order to improve concentration and discipline. There is no question that changes need to be made in schools, but it is necessary that the changes that schools implement need to be tested before being imposed on children, to ensure no further damage occurs to the inequalities between the genders.

It is difficult to discuss the gender gap in education without involving social class and race, which are significant factors which are interlinked with gender, and influence the statistics. Due to the limitations of this essay, the issue relating gender to race, and more importantly social class could not be discussed in detail. The statistics identifying the gender difference are relevant, but they only tell half a story. The gender gap is not that large, and there is great variation within the genders. Therefore, there is a need to look behind the headlines to find out which girls are achieving and which boys are not.

Education can never be gender neutral because the genders are too different. Once this has been established, there should be more emphasis on creating strategies to minimise the existing gender gap, and making education successful for both genders. Physical differences mean that there will always be differences between boys and girls, and these differences will always be published and criticised. Comparisons between the genders worsen the situation, as one gender will always be referred to as the ‘failing’ gender because they will never be equal.

Word count: 3975