It has come to a stage of role reversal, (girls achieving better than boys), highlighted by the media. Girls have overtaken boys and so now boys are ‘underachieving’ – perhaps boys are working to their level, but that level is lower than that of the girls? School failure increases among boys from low-socio-economics or marginalized cultural/geographical communities: “The higher the socio-economics status of parents on these measures [of household income, family structure, parental education], the higher is the literacy and English performance of their children, both boys and girls, on average’ (Buckingham 1999: 7).
[Fig 1] Proportion of school leavers with 5 or more GCSE’s, grades A-C or equivalent, by sex and year. (Adapted from the facts and figures website: A review of research evidence on the apparent underachievement of boys)
Fig 1 [above] clearly demonstrates that there was a time when boys consistently outperformed girls on O-Level, A-Level and university level examinations. However, this pattern appears to have changed in recent years, a fact which has prompted widespread comment and, in some quarters, an apparent sense of 'panic' that boys are underachieving.
An additional factor that seems to be important is that boys' underachievement is linked to behaviour, and, in particular, anti-school subcultures and peer-group pressures. The result of this is the importance of positive aspirations or perceptions of school as promoting higher educational achievement: this factor operates usually, but not exclusively, to the advantage of girls, as they tend to have more positive attitudes to school than boys. However, the same effect is found in areas where boys have more positive attitudes as in, for example, science. A number of other research studies develop this further and conclude that the educational attainment of girls is positively correlated with equal opportunities in school and the wider society.
Colin Noble and Wendy Bradford (2000) suggest that there are six key reasons for why boy’s attainment in early literacy skills is lower than girls and that this is a gap that increases with age. Noble and Bradford (2000) point out that others may use different terminology or offer alternative reasons. They also acknowledged that many believe looking for the cause of the problem to be extraneous. However, without an understanding of its source, it is possible that strategies and policies might be implemented which are ill-suited to deal with the situation.
The first reason offered by Noble and Bradford is ‘genetic’. They argue that there is evidence to suggest that females have a genetic predisposition to be better communicators than males. Surrey Local Education Authority has recorded marked differences in the linguistic abilities between three-year-old boys and girls. Additionally, strong links have long been established between the development of spoken language and literacy. The combination of these factors could be reasons why boys perform less well than girls in literacy.
‘Changes in society’ is the second reason suggested. In recent times there have been colossal changes in regard to traditional gender roles. Nowadays women are seldom found just "working in the home" with men acting as the "breadwinners". Employment opportunities for both men and women have changed drastically, although it is still women who carry out the vast majority of domestic chores. Noble and Bradford argue that there is now a perception that women work much harder than men, an attitude which affects the way children approach their "work".
The third reason offered also involves the issue of role models and is called ‘changes in families’. There are now 1,250,000 single parent families in the UK, mostly headed by women. This means that there are large numbers of boys with no significant man in their lives. The situation is compounded by the fact that in the field of Early Years, less than 2% of the work force is male, a figure that rises to just 13% in the area of primary education. A lack of any male role model, as Noble and Bradford (2000) indicate, must lead to confusion with self- image and confidence. This in turn must affect the way children respond in school. Helen Bee (1989) supports this theory in Chapter 10 of her book, The Developing Child, where she discusses the significance of role models, when developing the concept of "self". She goes on to say that, from a very young age, children develop fixed ideas of what they can and can not do or become, because of their perception of gender roles. It is very clear that, for both boys and girls, contact with positive role models, both male and female, is a crucial aspect in developing self-awareness.
‘Curriculum reasons’ are also named as a factor in boys' underachievement. The suggestion is that the pressures put on schools having to deliver the National Curriculum, mean that children spend a lot of time sitting, listening and writing. The more flexible, practical activities have tended to be squeezed out. This is to the detriment of all children, but certainly the preferred learning styles of boys involve far less structure, with more flexibility and freedom to move. Marian Whitehead (2002:106) is clear in this when she states that the pressures of, "formal, passive and sedentary" teaching, introduced too early, are particularly damaging to boys.
‘School management and classroom management’ are the final reasons given by Noble and Bradford for the underachievement of boys. They believe that Head Teachers and Senior Management Teams are neglecting to act quickly enough on received information regarding pupil achievement. There is also the suggestion that managers are failing to tackle effectively the "anti-swot" culture which they believe is rife in our schools, amongst boys.
However, Dan Kindlon and Michael Thompson (1999) stress the importance of parents and carers understanding the needs of boys. We have already looked at some of the issues concerning the lack of role models within the school setting, as well as in the home. In addition to this paucity of male influence in the lives of many boys, there is the very real possibility that many of the numerous females caring for them, lack empathy and understanding. It is conceivable that they inadvertently enforce traditionally female values on them, i.e. sitting still and being quiet equals good behaviour. This can lead to feelings of confusion and low self-esteem for many boys, as their essential maleness would seem to be deemed "inappropriate". This can result in disaffection, which inevitably impacts on attitude, behaviour, effort and, ultimately, achievement. As Kindlon and Thompson point out, the misunderstanding of boys and their needs can lead them to feel like, "….a thorn among roses; he is a different, lesser and sometimes frowned upon presence and he knows it." (1999:30)
It has also been mentioned that because younger boys are failing due to insufficient male role models in the female-dominated sector of nursery/primary and this failure follows them through the education system. Hence, secondary schoolboys interviewed by McCumstie (2001 secondary data) greatly valued the opportunity to talk to male teachers. Comments were made such as these men ‘listen to you’; ‘are on the same level as us’; ‘a bloke knows where you are coming from’. McCumstie interprets these comments as the boys understanding the male teacher connexion differently from their connexion to female teachers.
The first was seen as bonding with a male. The second was seen as connexion to a female, mothering or caring person. The boys talked enthusiastically of their male teachers as male role models. They believed that a role model was someone who earned respect from others, gained admiration from other males; and showed leadership, perseverance, discipline and individuality. The boys saw these qualities in males in TV, movies, rugby, cricket as well as among their male teachers. The boys said their male role models were their fathers and male teachers (2001: 69). These were needed by all the boys, they said, but particularly boys who had no father resident in the home. The boys felt men needed to pass on the baton of masculinity for the boys to develop as fully masculine males (2001: 70). Female teachers had admirable qualities, but were seen by boys in a different light from males. In an editorial in the Independent newspaper (5th January 1998), it mentioned that the Teacher Training Agency needs to tackle this issue and therefore ‘raising of the status of teaching in order to attract more men into the profession’.
Mentoring is important because boys are influenced by peers. The arguments about why males need a mate and what mateship means to males, appears in West (1996). Boys want very much to be accepted by other boys. They are influenced by other boys to go out to play sport, see movies, or work. Paired writing sessions, with an older boy or an older girl encouraging a younger boy. However, on a more drastic level, the Independent newspaper (5th January 1998) suggested cutting the amount of coursework leading to GCSE which supposedly favours girls. Coursework was introduced into GCSE examinations to improve the ‘fitness for purpose’ of the assessment, not because of any concern with gender. The ‘official’ view of what constitutes coursework is that offered by the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA) in their document GCSE Regulations and Criteria. However, Stobart et al (1992) found that girls do better on coursework relative to exams.
“Coursework consists of in-course tasks set and understand according to conditions
prescribed by an awarding body. Coursework activities are integral to, rather than
incidental to, the course of study. Coursework is normally marked by a candidate’s
own teacher according to criteria provided and exemplified by the answering body,
taking national requirements into account. It is moderated by the awarding body”
Finally, this essay will look at the recent ofsted document (2003, p5) research findings suggest that ‘boys and girls tend to achieve better GCSE results in single sex schools’. The report (2003, p5) explains that interestingly however that ‘the effect of single-sex grouping in mixed schools is variable, with some marginal gains reported but other unsuccessful examples’. One of the successful examples Shenfield High School, Essex, where, since 1994, boys and girls have been taught separately in every subject except GCSE options at Key Stage 4 and at Key Stage 5. It was the former head, Dr. Peter Osborne, whom looking at the findings of Professor Michael Barber at Keele University who reported that ‘despite 70% of teacher time being given to boys, and despite girls professing to feelings of academic inferiority compared to the boys, girls were achieving better results than boys in most GCSE subjects” (Bleach 2000, p158). Government pressure to improve results led to a decision to adopt a whole school single-sex class policy although pupils would continue to register together and mix at recreational times so as not to lose the social benefits of mixed-sex schooling. Since then exam results have been increased and the project continues.
Clark (1998, p25-6) includes some interesting opinions of students on single sex setting within a mixed school. Clark found that generally the girls preferred to be taught in a single sex class as they no longer felt “embarrassed about speaking in class and getting it wrong, some felt they “learnt more when the boy’s weren’t there” and others “enjoyed it more with just the girls”. However, Clark also says that “some girls thought that teachers made lessons more fun in a mixed situation because it was essential to retain the boys interest, but in an all girls group could ‘get away with ‘more academic work”. The boys opinion of singly sex classes was much more mixed with some feeling “less inhibited” in an all boys setting and some not liking it.
A study by Bob Powell (1985) claims to address boys underachievement. However, girl’s underperformance noted in maths and sciences received a lot of attention since the 1970’s, though none had been directed at boy’s underperformance in languages. It is argued that Powell does not say that, and for most of the century girls had been observed to outperform boys in French. Thus, in conclusion, it is put forward that the question is not ‘why are boys now underachieving but rather that of ‘why boy’s underachievement has now become an object of concern’
Word Count: 2,403
Word Limit: 2,000
Bibliography
-
Bee, Helen. (1989) ‘The Developing Child’, (5th ed.) Harper Collins
-
Bleach, K. (1998) ‘Raising Boys’ Achievement in Schools’, Stoke-On-Trent, Trentham Books
-
Buckingham, J. (1999) ‘The Puzzle of Boys, Educational Decline: A review of the Evidence’. Canberra: Centre for Independent Studies.
-
Clark, A. (1998) ‘Gender on the Agenda - factors motivating boys and girls in MFL’s’, London: CiLT.
-
Kindlon, D. & M. Thompson (1999) ‘Raising Cain’, Middlesex: Penguin
-
Noble, C. & W. Bradford (2000) ‘Getting it right for boys…and girls’. London: Routledge
-
Ofsted, (2003) ‘Boys’ Underachievement in Secondary Schools’, London: Ofsted Publications Centre
-
Powell, B. (1985) ‘Boys, Girls and Languages in school’. London: CILT
-
Rowan, L. Knobel, M. Bigum, C and Lanskshear, C. (2002) ‘Boys, Literacies and Schooling; The dangerous territories of gender-based literacy reform’ Open University Press, Independent International Publisher.
-
Stobbart et al, (1992) ‘Differential performance at 16+, English and mathematics’, London: Schools Examination and Assessment Council
-
Whitehead, M. (2002) ‘Developing Language and Literacy with Young Children’, London: Paul Chapman Publishing
-
A review of research evidence on the apparent underachievement of boys 20th December 2004
- Elaine Millard (1997) – source has been misplaced.
