apparent. Firstly, a tendency:
“...for girls to take mainly arts subjects, and for boys to specialise
to a greater extent in mathematical, scientific and technical
disciplines.” (Deem 1978:66)
Secondly, Deem (1978:65-66) argues that although at GCE ‘O’ level more girls were entered for
the examinations than boys, at CSE (Certificate of Secondary Education) this was reversed. At
GCE ‘A’ level the number of males gaining three or more passes in 1974 was 9.2 per cent,
against 6.6 per cent of females. When these discrepancies are added to the introduction of the
Sex Discrimination Act in 1975, a new discourse came to the fore.
“Feminists within education used the legislation to open up the
debates about inequalities in schooling for girls, pushing for
changes in pedagogy, curriculum, policy, and administration.”
(Weiner et al. 1997:623)
As Walkerdine (1994:12-13) notes, girls who performed well were considered to be diligent and
hard working, whereas boys even when performing less well were spoken of as having the:
“...kind of potential that leads to brilliance.” Feminists began to sensitise both women and
society at large to such inequalities. In an attempt to combat gender inequalities a variety of
strategies were tried. Wiener (1994:77) suggests that these included: Revising school texts;
rearranging timetables to enable children to opt for non-traditional subjects; the encouragement
of wider career aspirations; the de-sexing of registers and the unisexing of uniforms; appointing
women as senior staff to provide positive role models for girls; establishing equal opportunity
posts and working parties. Studies were set up:
“...to focus on girls’ ‘failure’ or underachievement in the schooling
system and education more generally in order to campaign for
change.” (Weiner 1994:67)
One of the outcomes of this was the introduction of the GIST project (Girls into Science and
Technology). Its aim was to make science subjects more female friendly and less stereotypically
masculine and therefore to encourage girls to study the physical sciences. “In the early 1970s, it
was still the case that some girls had no opportunity at all to study physical sciences after the
third year at secondary school.” (Whyte 1986:11) All of these had a limited effect on the
numbers of girls studying what had been typically male subjects, but perhaps the biggest
influence came with the introduction in 1988 of the National Curriculum. In the same year for the
first time GCSE examinations were sat by these children.
The National Curriculum meant that all children were forced to study core subjects up to the age
of sixteen; much of the possibility of choice was removed. For the first time in the history of free
compulsory education, both male and female students were having to sit the same examinations
in large areas of the arts and sciences.
“The resulting change in the higher examination entry and
performance patterns of girls, has caused the shifts picked up by
the press.” (Wiener et al. 1997:625)
Again the discourse changed, this time from failing and underachieving girls, to disadvantaged
boys. Each year the cry became louder as the gender gap narrowed, then girls began to
overtake the boys. By 1990, according to the Department for Education & Employment national
statistics, 7.6 per cent more girls than boys were gaining five or more A-C passes at GCSE. The
gap continued to widen until 1994, when it was decided that less of the work, in some subjects,
should be continuous assessment as this appeared to favour girls. That year the gap narrowed
slightly from 9.0 per cent in 1993 to 8.7 per cent, but this was only a temporary setback. The
following year the gap widened again to 9.1 per cent, in 1996 and 1997 it had risen to 9.5 per
cent. At GCE ‘A’ level examinations, if not quite as large, a similar trend can be seen. Statistics
such as these would suggest that boys are being disadvantaged at school, if it were not for the
fact that they too have improved examination results. In 1990 30.8 per cent of boys gained five
or more GCSE grade A-C passes, by 1997 this had risen by almost ten per cent to 40.5 per
cent. This leaves the question, why has the subject of disadvantaged boys entered the
discourse of education.
Weiner et al. (1997) suggests that the discourse about girls’ underachievement in the 1970s and
1980s was well informed and organised by feminist activists. The current arguments around
boys’ disadvantage have very different roots. They argue that in 1993, the James Bulger
murder:
“...sent shock-waves throughout Britain, and this resulted in a
media-led reappraisal of how cultural changes were affecting
working-class masculinity’s relationship to the family, schooling,
and the labour market.” (Weiner et al.1997:627)
During the past twenty-five years, working class masculinity has taken a great knock. Younger
& Warrington (1996:301-302) suggest that there may be a link between boys’ perceived
inevitability of unemployment and their under performance at school. It can be argued that a
reaction against this is what Mac an Ghaill called ‘macho lads’. Due to their inability of creating
their masculinity through future employment, these boys are doing so through a: “...shared view
of the school [as] a system of hostile authority and meaningless work demands.” (Mac an Ghaill
1994:145) A way of coping with this hostility is for the school to operate its disciplinary regime in
a more overt authoritarian mode towards these pupils. As the authority becomes more
prominent, the boys become more hostile creating a downward spiral of disenchantment with the
education system. To a certain extent this is probably true, but what Mac an Ghaill appears to
be ignoring is that many working class boys have always considered school to be meaningless
and a waste of time, leaving at the earliest opportunity. Prior to the school leaving age being
raised to sixteen, these boys would not have faced the examinations, which today’ girls appear
to cope with to a higher standard. This suggests that even though employment prospects have
altered, girls advance in educational performances are not creating disadvantages for boys,
because they have always been there for certain sectors, as Paul Willis’ study of ‘the lads’
between 1972 and 1975 shows. The problem is, can these working class boys adapt to the new
realities of modern employment?
The Fordist mode of production has almost complete collapsed in the Western World and has
been partially replaced by jobs in the service industry. This new type of work appears to suit the
female ‘natural’ abilities. Jobs which require a higher degree of communication, more self
organisation and greater flexibility, are often claimed to be feminine attributes. It can therefore
be argued that the reason girls are doing better at school is that they can see the opportunities
in future employment in today’s workplace. In other words, they are simply trying harder. The
home environment has also changed: there are many more female headed households; more
single women households; and for those who do have partners, many more women have to work
to enable the household to have large enough income for a reasonable standard of living. Many
of today’s better educated women find homemaking and raising a family not sufficiently fulfilling,
and therefore turn to outside interests that will stretch their minds. All of these factors can give
girls the impetus to do well at school in order to find better paid and more satisfying employment
when they leave education, but that does not mean that in the process boys are being
disadvantaged.
So far this essay has argued that the advance in girls’ performance has not disadvantaged boys,
but there are some areas where this might be different in the future. Firstly, there is the problem
of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If teachers consider boys to be less able than girls, their attitude
towards them could cause boys to do less well. This may lead on to a more dramatic and
possibly dangerous shift within education. The market within today’s education is encouraging
the ‘better’ schools to use forms of selection, which has been fuelled by the publication of league
tables. If girls continue to out perform boys then there is a possibility that these schools will
begin to enrol only female students, on the assumption that they will gain more and higher
grades in their examinations. If this were to happen, then the boys would certainly become
disadvantaged. Secondly, there is a problem of citizenship. Since the beginning of the
suffragette movement, women have fought for full citizenship rights. Even today when girls are
outperforming boys, there is still a gap in wages. The TUC claim that: “Women are twice as
likely to be low paid as men.” Poverty makes it difficult, if not impossible, to partake fully in a
Democratic society.
“[As] Those by virtue of inequalities attached to their class, gender
or ethnicity are unable to participate effectively in their society may
be denied the status of citizenship.” (Scott 1994: p62)
This said, there are signs that perhaps things are beginning to change at least at a higher level.
Last year, according to the Jobsite Journal: “Women directors have seen their pay rise by 9.2%,
compared with a 7.8% increase for their male colleagues.” If this trend continues it is possible,
even if unlikely in the near future, that larger pay rises for women in top positions will trickle
down to those on lower pay. Eventually the more highly qualified women being paid more than
men. If this should happen, then today’s boys would be placed at a future disadvantage.
This essay has looked at the way girls, in the past, have been marginalised through the
education system’s insistence on training them for the role of mother and housewife. It was only
when many of the practices used were removed, and the feminist movement taking up the fight,
that girls were able to approach education on a nearly equal footing to boys. This together with
an increased unemployment rate, a change in the workplace and more women headed
households has encouraged girls to work towards a more rewarding career than has often been
previously open to them. In the process they have overturned received wisdom that boys are
more intelligent and are now, on average, receiving higher examination marks than boys. This
has brought with it a ‘moral panic’ which it has been suggested here has been caused by the
press which was fuelled by the James Bulger murder. The media have termed these boys as
disadvantaged because they are not as successful as the girls. The interesting part about this
new discourse is that when girls were doing less well than boys, this was because they were
‘underachieving’ or ‘failing’, they were never called disadvantaged. The terms used to describe
girls suggests that the problem was theirs, whereas the word disadvantaged suggests that the
fault lies elsewhere. In an attempt to stem the flow of girls improved marks the examination
system was slightly changed in 1994, but this only had a temporary effect on the growing gender
gap in GCSE results. As this trend in the gender gap is not only visible in the United Kingdom,
but can be seen in other advanced capitalist societies, it is argued here that its cause must be
one of a wider social change and not just the education system. Any major attempt to modify
the system in order to bring boys back to their previous position would mean that girls would
have to be disadvantaged. Perhaps the answer is much more simple. If boys achievements
were shown for what they are, that is an increased GCSE grade A-C pass rate of 9.7 per cent
since 1990, then their self-image may improve and with it their examination results.
This essay has also highlighted two of the possible results of boys being seen as not achieving
as well as girls. Firstly, there is the problem of the market within the education system, and the
possible consequences of selection. Secondly, the possibility of today’s boys finding it more
difficult to find well paid employment. If either of these happened they would lead to male
disadvantage, and this is the most worrying part of the way girls’ advance is creating a problem
for boys and in particular those from working-class backgrounds. This is perhaps where the
answer lies, not to compare gender, but to look at how boys from working-class backgrounds
can be encouraged to improve their communication skills to enable them to find rewarding
employment in the future. Unless of course this has been a deliberate manoeuvre, as:
“The education system legitimises economic inequality by
providing an open, objective and ostensibly meritocratic
mechanism for assigning individuals to unequal economic
positions" (Bowles & Gintis 1976:02)
Perhaps in the future, men will simply no longer be economically necessary and are therefore
being deliberately downgraded within society.
References
Baxter, A. (1998) S13 University of the West of England Lecture Notes.
10th February 1998
Bowles, S. & Schooling in Capitalist America
Gintis, H. (1976) Routledge, London.
Deem, R. (1978) Women and Schooling. Routledge and Kegan Paul,
London.
Department for Education National Examination Statistics.
& Employment (1998) http://homepage.eurobell.co.uk/bstubbs/5A-C.HTM
Mac an Ghaill, M. (1994) Local Student Cultures of Masculinity and Sexuality.
In S13 University of the West of England Reader.
Scott, J. (1994) Poverty and Wealth: Citizenship, Deprivation and Privilege.
Longmans, London.
TUC What is the TUC’s Policy on a Minimum Wage?
http://bizednet.bris.ac.uk:8080/compfact/tuc/tuc48.htm
Unnamed Women Managers Move Ahead.
http://www.jobsite.co.uk/journal/article8.html
Walkerdine, V. (1994) What Makes Girls So Clever. The Independent.
6th September 1994
Weiner, G. Arnot, M. Is the Future Female? Female Success, Male
& David, M (1997) Disadvantage, and Changing Gender Patterns
In Education. In Halsey et al. Education Culture, Economy,
Society. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Weiner, G. (1994) Feminisms in Education: an Introduction.
Open University Press, Buckingham.
Whyte, J. (1986) Girls into Science and Technology.
Routledge & Kegan Paul London.
Willis, PE (1977) Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working
Class Jobs. Saxon House, Farnborough.
Younger, M. & Differential Achievement of Girls and Boys at GCSE:
Warrington, M. (1996) Some Observations from the perspective of one school.
In. S13 University of the West of England Reader.
Bibliography
Baxter, A. (1998) S13 University of the West of England Lecture Notes.
10th February 1998
Bowles, S. & Schooling in Capitalist America
Gintis, H. (1976) Routledge, London.
Connell, R.W. (1997) The Big Picture: Masculinities in Recent World History.
In Halsey et al. Education Culture Economy Society.
Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Deem, R. (1978) Women and Schooling. Routledge and Kegan Paul,
London.
Deem, R. ed. (1980) Schooling for Women’s Work. Routledge and Kegan Paul,
London.
Deem, R. & Weiner, G. eds. (1984) Co-education Reconsidered. Open University Press. Milton
Keynes.
Department for Education National Examination Statistics.
& Employment (1998) http://homepage.eurobell.co.uk/bstubbs/5A-C.HTM
Green, A.G. & Ball, S.J. eds. (1988) Progress and Inequality in Comprehensive Education.
Routledge, London.
Mac an Ghaill, M. (1994) Local Student Cultures of Masculinity and Sexuality.
In S13 University of the West of England Reader.
Meighan, R. (1981) A Sociology of Educating. Hold Rinehart and Winston,
London.
Scott, J. (1994) Poverty and Wealth: Citizenship, Deprivation and Privilege.
Longmans, London.
TUC What is the TUC’s Policy on a Minimum Wage?
http://bizednet.bris.ac.uk:8080/compfact/tuc/tuc48.htm
Unnamed Women Managers Move Ahead.
http://www.jobsite.co.uk/journal/article8.html
Walker, S. & Barton, L (1989) Politics and the Process of Schooling. Open University
Press. Milton Keynes.
Walkerdine, V. (1994) What Makes Girls So Clever. The Independent.
6th September 1994
Weiner, G. Arnot, M. Is the Future Female? Female Success, Male
& David, M (1997) Disadvantage, and Changing Gender Patterns
In Education. In Halsey et al. Education Culture, Economy,
Society. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Weiner, G. (1994) Feminisms in Education: an Introduction.
Open University Press, Buckingham.
Whyte, J. (1986) Girls into Science and Technology.
Routledge & Kegan Paul London.
Willis, PE (1977) Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working
Class Jobs. Saxon House, Farnborough.
Younger, M. & Differential Achievement of Girls and Boys at GCSE:
Warrington, M. (1996) Some Observations from the perspective of one school.
In. S13 University of the West of England Reader.
11
