The Gender Divide and Achievement

The Gender Divide and Achievement:

Boys’ underachievement and the Gender Gap

Within the topic of gender and achievement, there is a large number of sociological research focusing on gender and achievement. Contemporary research has focused on the constant shrinking and growing of the gender gap in achievement. However, in the analysis of achievement data, it has been found that gender focus ignores other social divisions and little data combines them. This as well as the underachievement of boys will be discussed in the following essay by reviewing literature that both supports and rejects the argument of boys’ underachievement.

Whether or not the gender gap is growing or shrinking, there is no doubt about the existence of a gender gap. Due to media coverage etc we can also accept that boys’ assessment scores “are generally more extreme than those of girls, and that therefore boys get more A grades at GCSE, do better at A level, and have higher failure rates” (Gorard, G. Rees, G. & Salisbury, J 1999: 443). There are many beliefs to explain boys’ underachievement. Some believe there are groups of ‘disaffected’ boys who are influenced by the new lad culture. This was pointed out in an early consultation paper called “Boys will be Boys (1996)”, where the main theme was on the ‘laddish’ behaviour and culture of boys. “A ‘laddish culture’ is seen to be one where boys’ groups adopt common practices commonly associated with male groups like football and drinking (Francis, 1999c in Francis, B & Skelton, C. 2005: 44). This can be linked to the gender divisions in experience, whereby ‘lads’ feel that school is uncool and emasculating. The ‘boys will be boys’ discourse was based around the ‘natural’ differences between boys and girls, whereby they are seen as “conventional masculine stereotypes” of being naturally clever but lazy and difficult to motivate, competitive, independent etc (Francis, B & Skelton, C. 2005: 45). This belief can be supported by Susan Jones and Debra Myhill’s (2004) research on ‘trouble some boys’ and ‘compliant girls,’ where teachers’ perceptions of how gender identity is seen to influence achievement levels were accounted for. Warrington and Younger (2000) stated that it was not the boys’ fault as there are external factors to blame. The poor boys’ discourse claims, “feminist agendas in education have ‘gone too far’ in empowering girls, and hence created an imbalance in schooling. In this sense boys are positioned as having ‘lost out’ to girls, and as consequently disadvantaged” (Francis, B & Skelton, C. 2005: 45).

Referring back to the point made about gender divisions in experience, suicide rates, sexual harassment (within in the school) and achievement in the labour market are accountable for the gender gap disadvantaging girls. But as the focus in this essay is on the underachievement of boys research into their experiences have focused on behaviour, criminal convictions and school exclusion. Within the Special Educational Needs (SEN) pupils, 70% are boys who are four times more likely to have behavioural, emotional and social difficulty (BESD). This therefore calls for an increase in government funds and resources, where most is targeted for boys. The DfES, 2007 found that boys were likely to have committed a criminal offence of 33% compared to girls with 21%. It was also found that 80% of boys had been given permanent exclusions and 75% fixed term exclusions, but for girls the numbers and rising.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Socio-economic class is another factor that we know is an impact on achievement in exams. “The effect of socio-economic factors on pupil achievement is judged by relating examination success to children who take free school meals” (Francis, B & Skelton, C. 2005: 61). Table 4.6 adds support to the argument that the more socially and economically disadvantaged the pupils, the less well they do in examinations. It was also found that the gender gap was wider within the less advantaged pupils in literary subjects but is roughly the same for mathematics and science as for those not taking free school meals (Francis, B & Skelton, C. 2005: 59-60). However Archer and Francis (2007) point out that “social class continues to have a profound effect on school achievement, in our contemporary society it is increasingly difficult to define and categorise.” This is true as most work on gender usually takes a detailed focus on social divisions as separate entities. But writers argue stating that keeping these divisions separate is advantageous because there is

“social conflation between social categories, or that they fall into hierarchies of importance. For example, Lynch and O’Neil (1994) argue that social class is qualitatively different to other indices of social difference, particularly in relation to education, and should thus be addressed separately” (Francis, B & Skelton, C. 2005: 25).

Supporting the argument of socio-economic class being a major influence on achievement is explained by Theo Cox (2000), where researched behaviours have found that “attitudes and motivation for academic learning are less committed among lower-class children and adults, particularly white working-class boys, often further weakened by negative peer group pressures in school” (Cox 2000: 260). The findings produced in his book as well as other related research all agree on the fact that half of the relevant age group fail to succeed in GCSE examinations at the levels traditionally expected.

In the topic of gender gap, there are many explanations. One I have already mentioned is state intervention and funding by the government to help pupils in need, especially boys. Research found that the most worrying underachievement was amongst boys from low-income homes and by the end of 1998, failing boys were being described as the ‘public burden number one’ and ‘one of the most disturbing problems facing the education system’ by OFSTED’s Chief Inspector for Schools in England (Gorard, G. Rees, G. & Salisbury, J 1999: 443). This therefore adds to the notion of boys being highly advantaged compared to girls. It is also found that the underachievement is only noticed once girls do better. In the 11 plus entry exams for secondary schools, it was found that girls were set higher targets than boys to reduce the number of girls in grammar schools, compared to the female-dominated primary schools.

One error in viewing the gender gap as growing is that found in Gorard, G. Rees, G. & Salisbury, J’s (1999) study. They found that politicians along with others have confused percentages with percentage points, which are also shared by writers and media commentators. “At GCSE ‘girls have accelerated ahead much faster’ than boys and the ‘gap has widened’ (Guardian, 1998, p. 12)” (Gorard, G. Rees, G. & Salisbury, J 1999: 442).

“Therefore, if unemployment decreases from 8% to 7% it may be reported as a decrease of 1%, whereas it actually represents a decrease of 1 point or 12.5% of the original. This lack of differentiation between percentages and percentage points can lead to serious misinterpretation in other circumstances, such as when two such sets of figures are involved” (Gorard, G. Rees, G. & Salisbury, J 1999: 442).

This flaw in methodological analysis may be a possible explanation to the growth of the gender gap.

Combining both the gender gap as well as gender divisions in experience evidence by Matthews (Independent 05.01.04) found that girl’s achievement is not matched in the labour market compared to boys. There are less than 10% of women in top jobs and the pay gap remains to be 18% between men and women. Francis and Skelton (2005) support this view by focusing on the importance of taking a closer look at the figures on and gender and achievement despite the changes in overall patterns of gender performance. “They have been shown by the Equal Opportunities Commission to provide one of the key explanations for the continuing gender pay-gap, where in Britain men continue to earn on average more than women” (2005: 111).

Moving onto ‘race’ and ethnicity, I found that it is a difficult term to conceptualise. Sociologically, ‘race’ is arguably defined as an “ideological, not a scientific, construct.” The extension of Stuart Hall’s thinking has had significant importance in conceptualising ‘race’ and ethnicity by treating race, ethnicity, culture and racism as separate entities. Within the research of gender and education, it has been found that definitions of ethnicity vary, making comparisons difficult. One example is of the term ‘black identity,’ which became widely proposed as a political identity whereby non-white groups could unite to challenge racism. “However, it’s political potential was challenged by ‘other’ minority ethnic groups, like ‘Asians’, who argued that their interests are not fully represented or engaged with sufficiently under the banner of ‘Black’ (Archer and Francis 2007: 29). Looking at social class and ethnicity, it was found that Chinese pupils on Free School Meals were found to out-perform their counterparts from other ethnic groups and were more likely to go onto further compulsory education. Although viewing ethnicity and academic achievement together is important, it can also create ideologies. For example within new discourses the emersion of ‘problem boys’ have been found within working-class White, Black/dual-carriage heritage and Muslim boys. The disproportionate over-representation of Black boys being excluded from schools, are creating stereotypes of Black boys as the “archetypical ‘problem pupil’ (Archer and Francis 2007: 23). Another point that interested me was that of the current affairs with Islamaphobia following the terror attacks of 09/11 and 07/07, where currently Muslim boys are also joining the stereotype of the ‘problem boys’ (Archer in Archer and Francis, 2007:23).

Feminists’ responses conclude that raising boys achievements should not be at the expense of girls. Warrington and Younger (2000) point out that underachieving girls are made to be invisible as the focus is more on boys. Research on “Failing working-class girls” by Gillian Plummer, found that the girls suffered emotional and psychological factors which influenced their education, including their home life. This shows that the home still remains important in the form of primary and secondary socialisation which may impact one later on in life.

Policies have been introduced to benefit both girls and boys by the introduction of single-sex classes within certain subjects and also the encouragement for boys and girls to sit and work together has been promoted to discourage the “school is uncool” notion. All classes do not adopt this idea of school being “uncool” as Walkerdine (2000) explain that the middle classes view education as fundamentally important and achievable, whereas the working-class do not have the same confidence in the education system. There is less pressure to achieve especially among boys as found in Paul Willis’ (1977) Learning to Labour, where working class boys traditionally learned their fathers’ occupation and rejected the middle class notions of living. For working-class girls it was similar, as girls were viewed as inferior and education was of no use for them, because they became housewives and reared children.

Other changes need to be made within the emotional side of boys as Salisbury, et al (1998) point out that changing the macho culture needs relationship work with boys. For example the acceptance of emotional males and those who choose not to conform to hegemonic masculinity.

Contemporary research shows findings where the gender gap is shrinking in terms of subjects chosen, examination achievement, excelling onto further education. But the issue of the gender pay gap will always remain a problem, even with the few numbers of women breaking through the ‘glass ceiling.’ Many have reached executive levels of occupation, but managerial positions are still male-dominated. Recent research including results produced by media commentators show that standards are improving for all pupils, but girls are outperforming boys at all stages of education. As mentioned earlier, crisis of masculinities are one of the reasons explored today in relation to boys’ underachieving, and its solution is individual relationship work. There is a change in the social attitudes towards girls in contemporary society, where girls’ achievement may not be matched in the labour market with boys, but they see a future in the labour market rather than just domestic work. Middle class women combine work and childcare as well as mother role, whereas working class women always work. This brings me on to another possible solution of the need of men as role models for underachieving boys. As there are mainly female teachers in primary schools, girls find it easier to relate to them causing boys to be unmotivated to work and achieve. But there is also the issue of men being paid more in primary school teaching as well as promotional opportunities, compared to women, which increases the gender pay gap.

In my readings I have found that conclusively, gender is and will remain to be a marker in education for underachievement. However we must be aware of how class and ethnicity interact with gender and also explore which is the most significant. The constant media coverage of the competition of gender in education will cause the gender gap to continuously grow and shrink, but undoubtedly it will always remain and exist.

Word count- 2,149

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archer, L. & Francis, B (2007) Understanding Minority Ethnic Achievement: Race, gender, class and ‘success’, Routledge

Explores the issue of minority ethnic achievement examining the views, identities and educational experiences of achieving pupils who tend to remain ignored.
Also provides a detailed case study of an educationally successful group, the British-Chinese.

Cox, T. (2000) Combating Educational Disadvantage: Meeting the needs of vulnerable children, Falmer press

Support for the idea of socio-economic factors being key influences on the achievement of pupils.

Francis, B & Skelton, C. (2005) Reassessing Gender and Achievement, Routledge

This book sets out to ask and answer the practical and philosophical questions at the heart of the debates around gender and achievement.
Investigates why boys’ underachievement is widely looked at and how effective the strategies to improve boys’ performance are.

Gorard, G. Rees, G. & Salisbury, J. (1999) Reappraising the apparent underachievement of boys at school. Gender and Education, 11,4.

Challenges the view of the growth of the gender gap and also looks at flaws of methodological analysis of results.
Used data from Key Stage statutory assessment and GCSE examination results for all pupils at school in Wales from 1992 to 1997
Also takes looks at policies to reduce achievement gaps.

Plummer, G. (2000) Failing Working-Class Girls. Trentham.

Analyses her own experience as well as others in families with low expectations of education influenced how women from w/c backgrounds still rarely achieve higher level academic qualifications as well as the life-style they lead.
Important reading in investigating the under-represented underachieving girls.