“Do boys have a future?”- Understanding the Boys’ Underachievement Discourse in the Context of Globalization

1. “Do boys have a future?”- Understanding the Boys’ Underachievement Discourse in the Context of Globalization Po King CHOI 蔡寶琼 Chinese University of HK 22 June 2006

2. Boys’ underachievement:a universal discourse (I) • In UK, Ofsted & EOC Report (The Gender Divide) in 1996 generated media reaction • “boys being lost” • “boys in terminal decline” • “boys being lapped by girls” • “boys in deep trouble” etc, etc…… • Australia: increasing discussion of boys’ education; resources put into compensatory programmes for boys • US: “Myth of short-changed girls”! “Boys, not girls, are on the weaker side of an educational gender gap” (Sommers, 2000, The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men)

3. Mainland China, mid 1990s Boys’ underachievement:a universal discourse (II)

4. “Women Champions ” in U Entrance Exam Arouse ConcernAcademics Blame Shortcomings in Educational System, 1996

5. Boys’ underachievement discourse in HK: The EOC- generated debate • 1998, 1st time individual primary school leavers “banding” released; which led to girls’ parents’ complaint about injustice • 1999, EOC’s report published: found ED’s Secondary School Places Allocation (SSPA) discriminatory • 2001, High Court ruling: SSPA against Sex Discrimination Ordinance

7. What was the SSPA like? (1)Used results of Academic Aptitude Test (AAT) to scale students in same school, to make (individual) School Assessment scores comparable. This was done on a gender basis; (2) Ranked all students into 5 “bands”, again on a gender basis; (3) Maintained a gender quota so that fixed ration of boys and girls within same area admitted to co-ed schools

8. Arguments against EOC • Boys mature later than girls, but they catch up later; so they should be allowed a measure of “positive discrimination” • School Assessment (SA) favour girls, because they demand linguistic skills, and memorization capacity • Girls’ school achievement owed to “studenting activities”

9. The “Problem” of Female Success • Boys’ success is “natural”, so no need to explain; girls’ success is abnormal and indicates failure of system

10. The boys’ underachievement discourse: does it hold water? • UK and Australia: girls’ academic superiority exaggerated; does not extend beyond school leaving level (young men are still the high achievers in universities) • Old patterns persist: • subject choice still follow traditional gender lines • girls still alienated from science subjects • classrooms still dominated by boys

11. Girls’ “overachievement” in HK? • Girls caught up since early 1980s (9 yrs of free and compulsory ed since 1978) • If one goes by participation rates alone, girls slightly ahead (88.5% vs 83% for upper sec; 18.4% vs 15.7% for university) • But if one looks at public exam results (HKCEE and HKAL): • Girls superiority only in languages • More boys than girls in high-achieving groups in science • For arts/soc sc/commercial subjects, gender diff uneven

12. Boys’ underachievement discourse detached from gender asymmetry in society • Gender inequity in workplace • Gender inequity in politics • More women in poverty • Family: unequal sharing of household chores • School: gender stereotypes in textbooks; boys’ domination in classrooms; gender stereotypical views among students re: career preferences, family roles, work roles and dating behaviour. While girls ready to change, boys hold on to traditional views

13. Accounting for boys’ underachievement discourse (I) • Crisis of masculinity amidst economic globalization • Working class male unemployment, undermining “breadwinner” prop to masculinity • “laddish” culture among boys • Insecurity for upper and middle management amidst restructuring, downsizing etc,

14. Accounting for boys’ underachievement discourse (II) • Backlash against feminist movement and gender affirmative policies • But, this does not apply to HK!

15. Prioritization of boys inherent in modern school system (I) • Linda Nicholson (1994) • Increased public/private split in capitalism accompanied by growing distinction between male and female attributes • Schools to socialize boys OUT of the feminine family

16. Prioritization of boys inherent in modern school system (II) • Valerie Walkerdine (1989) • Construction of “rationality” highly gendered: women part of nature under male gaze and control • Progressive “child-centred” pedagogies: the active child with naturally-endowed potential to be nurtured by the supportive, passive (female) teacher and mother • Therefore, female achievement is abnormal, pathological

17. Prioritization of boys inherent in modern school system (III) • Victoria Foster (2000) • Civic public realm of citizenship relies on opposition between the public (male) and the private (female) • Schools are part of the public realm • Women cannot be “proper” learner-citizens • The “space invader” perception of academically successful girls/women

18. Is the school too “feminized” for boys (I)? • Exaggerated and extreme need for boys to “prove themselves” (laddish cultures), often resulting in destructive, aggressive practices of homophobia and misogyny • End Child Sexual Abuse Foundation (HK) survey 2004 found: sexual abuse of male students by male peers prevalent

19. Incidents of (male) school violence • 屢被欺負中二生舞刀追同窗 校園暴力兩宗兩學生「講數」動武 《明報》2005-10-19 • 3 小惡霸扯傷7歲同窗下體 事主發炎揭發11歲小六生被捕 《明報》2006-01-18

20. Is the school too “feminized” for boys (II)? • Boy friendly programmes: curriculum and texts, special mentoring groups for boys, more structured teaching (instead of more expressive and investigative modes) • HK: boys’ primary school- • Academic contest designed in format of fighting video game • Film clip with clearly gendered-stereotyped overtones to promote reading contest • More physical activities • Danger of such programmes: reinforce destructive, aggressive masculine cultures

21. Is the school too “feminized” for boys (III)? • Francis’ study in UK • Pressure for boys and girls to “fit in” traditional gender expectations • Boys dominate classrooms • Girls hold greater ambitions for future • Girls’ awareness of discrimination at workplace a spur for achievement • Despite instability in job market, boys remain complacent • For boys, threat of losing their masculinity vis-à-vis girls an URGENT problem: the process of becoming a “MAN” fraught with difficulties, confusion and contradiction

22. What next? • Emergence of new hegemonic masculinity in schools • The entrepreneurial school (market, managerialism, performativity) undercuts humanist values, leads to alienation, sense of guilt and loss • But on the other hand, hegemonic masculinity has a “feminine” face: “caring”, “team work”, “empathetic understanding”, “creativity”, communication skills

23. What next? (cont’d) • As traditional gender certainties destabilized (eg., loss of breadwinner role), and • And with new configuration of gendered values and practices, can we • Intervene at this juncture of “crisis of masculinity” to arrive at greater gender equity (and a more rewarding life in school for boys and girls?)