Gender & Attainment

1. Gender & Attainment How and Why does the Educational Attainment of Boys and Girls differ?

2. The Gender Gap • Girls appear to cope better with education than boys, yet lag behind, when it comes to turning qualifications into careers. • There could be Socio-biological reasons for this. Could the explanation lay with differences in the genetic make-up of the sexes? • But on the other hand, the differential attainment of the sexes could have more to do with the way that children are socialised into their adult gender roles. • So: Is nurture more important than nature?

3. Social Trends: 2002 M F Students passing KS 1 Reading 81 88 tests at the SAT Writing 82 90 predicted level. Maths 89 92 Science 88 91 [Teacher assessed] KS 2 English 70 79 Maths 73 73 Science 86 87 KS 3 English 58 75 Maths 67 68 Science 66 67

4. Social Trends: 2002 2001-2 Five GCSE A-C’s Boys = 45% Girls = 56% 2003 A-C grades as % of all entries Boys = 54% Girls = 62% 2001 Gaining 1 or more A-levels Boys = 37% Girls = 47% 2001 Gaining 2 or more A-levels Boys = 33% Girls = 42% 2003 Gaining an A at A-Level: % of entries Boys = 20% Girls = 22.9%

5. Social Trends: 2001/2002 M F[1000’s] Further Ed. Full-time 543 543 Part-time 1528 2376 Higher Ed. UnderGrad. Full-time 519 620 Part-time 257 380 Post-Grad. Full-time 86 86 Part-time 140 151

6. Abstract of Statistics 2003 1Number of First Degree Students Undergraduates M F [1000’s] • Med & Dent 13.7 17.4 • Allied Med 13.1 44.6 • Biological 24 42 • Agriculture 3.8 6.8 • Physical Sci 26 17 • Maths & IT 60 18.5 • Engineering 61 11 • Architecture 13.9 2

7. Abstract of Statistics 2003 2 Undergraduates M F [1000’s] • Social Science 45 69 • Business 52 58 • Documentation 8 12 • Languages 15 40 • Humanities 15 17.4 • Creative Arts 34 51 • Education 10.4 34

8. Tucker: The not so Hidden Curriculum 1992 • The National Council for Vocational Qualifications was created by the New Vocational policies of the 1980’s. • Mrs Thatcher wanted to improve Britain’s trading position in Europe by supplying business with the skilled workers it needed. • Tucker points out that NVQ’s, GNVQ’s & AVCE’s tend to divide pupils on gender lines. • Girls are secretaries & health care workers, boys expect jobs with authority & machines.

9. Feminist Sociologists argue that girls are discriminated against. • Buswell in Gender & Education argued that the subjects girls were good at were not ‘privileged’ or highly valued. • Denscombes in Class Interaction argued that girls do rebel, but do it in different ways than boys, they were more manipulative. • Griffin, in ‘Typical girls’, found that girls’ interactions were more dictated by consideration of what staff and pupils thought of them, than were boys

10. Girls and Interaction • Anyon in Class & Gender 1981 argued that girl’s more often negotiate, than openly rebel. • Lees in Losing Out,Sexuality & Adolescent Girls 1986, argued that girls were more easily inhibited by the threat of criticism or shaming. • Goldberg/Lewis & Newsons all argue that girls are treated more strictly by parents & that parents expect girls to conform & succeed at school • Kelly in Science for Girls showed that girls tended to defer to boys in group work. Girls prefer open questions, but tend not to answer, when in mixed classes.

11. Ethnicity • Fuller, in ‘Black girls in a London Comp.’ showed how pupils can subvert the labels put upon them & use the school, without appearing to be conformist. • Stone, in Education of black British child’, found that interactions were affected by the false perception that schools were racist. • Stone & the Swann Report show that black students have fewer opportunities • Phoenix in Afro-Caribbean Myth accepted that matrifocal families explain why black girls do better than black boys

12. Stanworth: Gender & Schooling 1983 • Girls were disempowered by interaction with staff, both male and female. • Girl’s names were less likely to be remembered, because they were less likely to have disciplinary action taken against them. • Quiet boys,who were unusual, were more likely to be remembered than quiet girls. • Teachers had stereotypical views about what girls should study or which careers they should aim for … and this affected the advice given to the girls. • Boys were more likely to get personal attention. • Girls were more likely to underestimate their own abilities.

13. Francis: Boys, Girls & Achievement 2000 • Education is gendered and this creates problems for both sexes. • Girls were still given less attention and the ‘chivalry’ factor allowed them to feel under less pressure than boys to perform well in class. • The fact that girls outperformed boys did not mean that girls were achieving their potential. • There were was still evidence of institutional sexism, when you looked at the fine detail of what subjects girls chose or excelled in. • At GCSE girls predominate in Biology, Languages, Home Ec, Psychology, Sociology, Art, Expressive Arts & Drama. Of 345,000 entries for A-Level Home Economics, only 75 were from boys.

14. Reynolds: Feminist Thinking 1991 • Reynolds argued that Afro-Caribbean girls out-performed boys, but that Afro-C’s attained less than other groups. • Non-Muslim Asians [Hindus, Sikhs] perform better than Muslim Asians. Asian girls appear especially disadvantaged. • The determinate variables appear to be poverty and anomie rather than ethnicity or gender

15. Sharpe: Just Like a Girl 1976/1994 • Sue Sharpe interviewed girls in a WC Ealing secondary in 1976, to gauge the effect of the Sex Discrimination Act, the Equal Pay Act & Women’s Lib. • The girls’ priorities were love, marriage, home & children; their career ambitions were subordinate. • When she repeated the research in 1994, ‘job, career and being able to support myself’ came first. Divorce made independence a necessity, just in case marriage didn’t work.

16. Joan Garrod: The Education Gender Gap 1 2004 • In the 1990’s girls were up on English at KS3, behind on Maths/Science. They overtook boys in most subjects @ GCSE [except Science/Tech..]. A-Level was more even, but @ college level, boys tended to reassert themselves [especially in Sciences /Engineering], because they were more career directed. • BUT: 2002 - Girls exceeded boys at KS3 in Maths, English & Science

17. Joan Garrod: The Education Gender Gap 2 2004 • 62.4% of girls achieved higher grades at GCSE, compared to 53.4% of boys. Girl’s results were better in all, except Physics. • 46.7% of girls went to college: 40.4% of boys • The underachievement of boys is a European phenomenon. What can explain it? • A Lads culture of aggression & anti-boff? • Peer group pressure against conformity? • Boys can’t organise themselves to do coursework or meet deadlines?

18. Joan Garrod: The Education Gender Gap 3 2004 • Male role models are anti-academic? • Too few primary teachers [13%] are men? • Single parent families lack male role models and mothers can’t discipline stroppy boys? • Single Sex schools have been proposed for both girls and boys, but research suggests that although both sexes do better in single sex schools, this is explained by such schools having informal selection & high status.

19. Joan Garrod: The Education Gender Gap 4 2004 • Research on Learning Preferences suggests that activity-based lessons, ICT, group work, problem solving lessons & less listening work for boys. • Boys respond to structured learning, clear targets,closed questions, discipline and a personal success ethos. • BUT: Ability & Poverty still produce bigger gaps in children’s attainment than gender!

20. Mitsos & Browne 1 : Underachievement of Boys 2004 • Boys narrow the gender gap at A-Level, are still more likely to get a better job than a girl with the same qualifications & usually earn much more, but boys do underachieve at school. Why? • Perhaps girls have simply caught up? The Women’s movement has persuaded schools to address previous discrimination against girls and perhaps boys’ issues have been neglected? Perhaps schools have simply become more ‘girl-friendly’ than ‘boy friendly’.

21. Mitsos & Browne 2 : Underachievement of Boys 2004 • More liberated mothers with a work ethic are encouraging daughters to expect a career and expect a wide range of life choices. • Girls are more mature than boys in self-discipline, responsibility & appreciation of deferred gratification…….by 2 years! • The self-fulfilling prophecy: teachers expect boys to misbehave and be late with work. • Street-cred & peer pressure are anti-boff.

22. Mitsos & Browne 3 : Underachievement of Boys 2004 • Traditional male jobs [manual/industrial] have declined & more jobs favour ‘feminine’ skills: caring, networking, communicating, service. • Boys are over confident of their ability; girls lack confidence and work harder, as a result. • Boys relate to each other by ‘doing’, by engaging in activities; girls relate by talking. This gives girls advantages in the classroom, where even sitting still comes more naturally for them.

23. Mitsos & Browne 4 : Underachievement of Boys 2004 • Girls more often read for pleasure, boys read for information. Boy’s reading deficit is a key factor in their lack of progress. • Boys are still socialised into Science & Technology and still dominate girls in group work, which suggests that the gap will widen even further, as schools find ways of maximising the potential of girls in these subjects. • Has women’s Lib created a male identity crisis?