Research project to develop whole school and cross ...
Mad About the Boy
Research project to develop whole school and cross curricular strategies for raising boys’ achievement, with particular focus on lesson planning, and teaching and learning materials and approaches.
Sara Stroet
Farlingaye High School
July 2009
Contents
1. Summary
2. Review of Current Educational Research and Information
3. The Picture at Farlingaye
4. Review of Psychological Literature of Potential Relevance to the Research
5. Some Strategies for Raising Boys’Achievement through Teaching and Learning:
i. Looking at the bigger picture: whole school policy issues
ii. Classroom management and pastoral care
iii. Lesson planning; and teaching and learning materials and approaches
iv. Extra-curricular Opportunities
6. Bibliography
7. Outline of CPD Session
1. Summary
My project involves a review of gender research in education published over the last ten years and also research drawn from psychology: two interacting academic communities both interested in the same problem.
My aim was to explore the following:
• Is there a problem?
• What is the problem?
• Possible explanations –what’s new from the researchers?
• What can we do about it?
• Will these strategies work?
2 . Review of Current Educational Research and Information
Is there a problem?
On the harness plates of my boy and girl twin’s reins are two different phrases. These were the only choices in the shop. The girl’s is pink and reads, ‘I’m a princess’. The boy’s reads, ‘Driving mum crazy’. It struck me as not only unfair, but also telling, about attitudes to boys which have persisted and been expressed for many years, albeit often intended as affectionate humour.
Parents and teachers often feel uncomfortable about talking of boy/girl differences, in case they are being unfair or politically incorrect, and yet it is equally likely that we are doing boys and girls a disservice if we fail to marry together equality of opportunity with a recognition of their different attributes, behaviour and development.
Boys are growing into men who are expected to play much more varied and complicated roles as fathers, partners, workers and home-sharers than in the past. Yet there appears to be a growing awareness that they are not being prepared or supported adequately in these new roles. Loss of effectiveness will probably have a detrimental effect on them, their families, and their ability to contribute to the good of the community and society as a whole. For example, most relationships break down in the first year of a first baby’s life. Are new fathers being sufficiently noticed, respected, listened to and helped, in order to intervene in this cycle? Recession will add its own pressures to men’s lives over the next few years.
Attitudes to and judgements about gender disadvantage in education rely on various factors which are difficult to measure.
One preliminary issue concerns relative versus absolute performance. In other words: is the phenomenon of boys doing worse simply the flip side of girls doing better? Exam performance has improved for both genders over recent years. Yes, it has improved more for girls. Advocates of any form of mobility always focus on the gains to the winners, but by definition, there will always be people who then become relatively worse off. Then there are the popular questions about the nature and difficulty of the examinations themselves and whether they are more ‘girl-friendly’.
If there is a problem, it seems much more complex and far-reaching than solely one of parity in exam results at the end of secondary education. It is women who are still disadvantaged in terms of vocational choice: they are still vastly under-represented in work traditionally seen as male. Men appear to have far greater choice and mobility in terms of job choice, and may be less well represented in some traditionally ‘female’ jobs only because they are poorly paid, or considered low status roles. Nevertheless, it is also probable that both genders are still affected by issues of identity and stereotyping which dissuade them from pursuing an interest in an atypical job for gender.
In addition, in economic terms, men are still significantly more successful in terms of progression and earnings. However, with women now outstripping men in numbers in the professions, this may not be the picture in ten years time. We must be vigilant to review criteria for judging achievement in a shifting society, as this is in the interests of both sexes. Dr Susan Jones and Dr Deborah Myhill of the University of Exeter note that:
The education media attention to underachieving boys has promoted a view of boys who either “won’t” or “can’t” achieve, set against a profile of capable and achieving girls. There are negative portrayals of boys as macho, testosterone packed lads; as failing boys, outshone by clever girls. Conversely, if the future is female, there are still surprisingly few representations of women in leadership roles at the top of a career chain. Not all print media or television programmes trade in stereotypes, and there are many examples of more subtly complex portrayals of gender, but for teenagers watching popular television programmes, the implicit message for boys could be construed as, “ You’re pretty hopeless, but don’t worry, you’ll still get a good job”; and for girls as, “You’re really bright, but don’t expect to get the top”. What then, might be the relationship between gender stereotypes and underachievement?
(Jones and Myhill: Noisy boys and invisible girls?, Literacy Today, December 2004 (issue no. 41))
The need for new forms of data analysis is outlined by Machin and McNally. They suggest research to clarify at what stage in education the gender gap is most important; how the gap relates to changes in school and the exam system; how it relates to wider social and economic change, such as the participation of women in higher education and the labour market, and the decline in male teachers; and how it relates to cultural changes.
Measurement is never neutral: it always rests on (unarticulated) assumptions. No system simply “measures intelligence” neutrally. For example, it may reward certain personality traits or measure certain kinds of intelligence only. Coursework rewards certain kinds of skills such as planning, preparation and a methodical approach. This may suit many girls better. Examinations may reward risk taking, innovation and being “lucky on the day”. This may suit many boys better.
A perceived problem with boys’ attainment may, to some extent, be a failure to recognize “multiple intelligences”: is what boys do well not regarded currently as valuable or productive in modern society?
Howard Gardner’s theory is that, ’we must figure out how intelligence and morality can work together to create a world in which a great variety of people will want to live’.
His multiple intelligence theory labelled different forms of ability, including
linguistic intelligence; logical mathematical intelligence (which has particular importance in the West – is helpful in dealing with some kinds of problems – but should not be seen as more important than others); bodily kinaesthetic intelligence;
musical intelligence; spatial intelligence; and naturalist intelligence. In this country, Alastair Smith has developed an approach for schools with pupils of all ages called Accelerated Learning which emphasises multiple intelligences. Valuing achievement and skills in an holistic way seems an integral part of encouraging students to try, in return, to be aware of themselves as multi-skilled beings, and make effort in different areas of intelligence.
What is the problem?
Underachievement used to be seen as a problem relating to girls. In the last twenty years, the focus has shifted increasingly to boys. This is not solely a problem in the United Kingdom: a gender gap favouring girls can be seen in many developing countries. The gender gap is an international phenomenon (OECD PISA Study)
This deficit in boys’ attainment can be seen in both literacy and numeracy. The literacy gap tends to widen as students get older. Most research focuses on academic scores up to 16 but there is also research going on into participation levels in higher education.
There also exists a ‘behavioural deficit’: there are significantly more exclusions of boys, and significantly more adverse interventions, in lessons and during the school day generally. Boys attract 60 per cent of teacher time in mixed classes. However, there may be an explanation for the fact that this attention is not positive:
When praise is given it is usually for academic performance rather than behaviour, so if boys are not performing academically, then they receive less praise. 40% of the disapproval of girls, as opposed to 26% of disapproval for boys, was for lack of knowledge or skill. (Spaulding)
In 2003, the ratio of boys excluded to girls in U.K schools was 4:1 at secondary level. Years 8 to 10 account for over two-thirds of permanent exclusions, peaking in Year 10.
There are various factors at play in determining attainment outcomes – the key ones being gender, social and economic status (SES), and ethnicity. As a result, gender effect is not uniform – gender interacts with other factors. There is the possibility of a “multiplier effect”, creating pockets of marked underachievement: for example, boys in lower SES groups. Professor Lori Beckett writing about Physical Education teachers’ learning, gender knowledge and professional practice, makes the point that it is,’ important to recognize multiple identities, as well as the interaction with other social markers, such as class and ethnicity, which pointed to a gender jigsaw as well as gender see-saw.’
The 2007 document from the DfES, ‘Gender and Education’, states that:
Gender is not the strongest predictor of attainment:
• The social class attainment gap at Key Stage 4 (as measured by percentage point difference in attainment between those eligible and not eligible for free school meals) is three times as wide as the gender gap.
• White British FSM boys are a group with particularly low attainment: only 24 per cent gain 5+ A*-C GCSEs (33 percentage points less well than average attainment at GCSE).
• However, Black Caribbean FSM boys and White British FSM girls are also doing significantly less well than the national average { respectively, 30 and 26 percentage points less well than average attainment at GCSE).
Research into the school leadership of four successful schools with a predominantly white working class intake could be relevant to addressing the needs of certain sections of the underachievers in our own school. Senior research fellow Denis Mongon, listened to discussions amongst the senior leadership team members of the best schools:
The most striking thing was the number of occasions when I couldn’t distinguish whether they were talking about their students or their colleagues. Their whole school culture was about learning and the notion that everybody could learn-including themselves-and their task was to identify the next learning step for pupils and staff…Everyone, whether pupil or staff, was entitled to make mistakes. The issue was never ‘what’s gone wrong?’ but rather ‘what have we learned?’
The personalities of the Heads were seen to have four really important similar traits, which researchers called ‘self-efficacy’, ‘internal locus of control’, ‘conscientiousness’ and ‘rapport’, and the most successful leaders had them all. Mongon comments,
They all said what goes on in the school is the responsibility of the school’s senior leadership team…they were focused primarily on getting on with the job…whether men or women, could be both tough and gentle. All were relentless in their pursuit of high quality, and all paid close attention to detail all the time…people who are good with people.
One Head pointed out that parents cared about their children, wanted them to behave well, be happy and succeed in life, but might need and appreciate help from school in how to achieve these things, especially when some of the skills, trades and positions open to fathers and grandfathers had disappeared and careers for women were expanding in a new way. It may be hard for families to feel confident about guiding their children in this new world of work. This Head wanted to break down stereotypical attitudes about deprived and disaffected backgrounds. Often families were deprived of money, but not of ambition and concern for their children.
Another of the secondary schools in Mongon’s research project shares only the descriptions of good and outstanding lessons from OFSTED, for their classroom observations, and teachers are asked where their lesson fits in relation to the descriptions. Questions then lead naturally to a positive approach: how can we help you to make the lesson good? If it is good, how we can help you to improve it? If it is outstanding, how can we help you to sustain this?
The physical quality of the environment mattered in all the successful schools. Rhythms were dependable, there was no ‘chaos’. This ties in with recommendations for boys from psychologist Steve Biddulph, discussed later in this research.
The secondary schools looked beyond school to give context to learning, drawing in outside role models from a wide variety of jobs and professions and offering aspirational experiences and trips. They would also invite in speakers who had come from a challenging background and gone on to do well in a particular career.
(Mongon et al. Successful Leadership for Promoting the Achievement of White Working Class Pupils)
Dr Steve Strand finds that the attainment gap at age 16, in terms of gender, ethnic group and socio-economic class, to be in inverse rank to the extent of press and media attention (total points score 0.22, 0.61 and 1.29 respectively) (Longitudinal Study of Young People in England 2007).
In other words, we may be responding disproportionately to the attainment issues which receive most attention in the press, and teachers would be better to address all markers in a more proportionate and holistic way. All of these observations, from research with a socio-economic interest, give valuable ideas for raising attainment in any mixed comprehensive school, thereby addressing achievement issues for class, ethnicity and gender.
Nevertheless, even if ethnicity and SES play an important role, all research agrees that gender can be isolated as a major factor in predicting achievement. Therefore, gender aware-strategies are necessary to tackling under-achievement. ‘Gender aware’ seems to me, in the light of recent research, to be a more helpful term than ‘gender based’. The debate over boys’ performance should hopefully lead to good pedagogy for all and result in a more evidence based awareness of where resources and expertise should be invested.
Possible explanations-what’s new from the researchers?
One fundamental issue which needs further research, debate and response is the age at which we start formal schooling in this country. A press release from The Institute for Fiscal Studies October (2007) is entitled, ‘When you are born matters for academic outcomes: urgent policy action needed to help summer born children’. It states that:
Children born later in the school year perform significantly worse in exams than those born earlier in the school year, even up to GCSE level…Policy changes are needed if this unfair disadvantage is not to damage the chances of summer-born children. New work by researchers at IFS draws on administrative data covering the entire state school population in England and shows dramatic differences between the proportions of August-born and September-born children reaching the expected level, from Key Stage 1 through to Key Stage 5.
The author points out that:
…access to further and higher education, and hence future success in the labour market is likely to be significantly affected by the month in which you are born.
Worryingly, and more directly relevant to us, teachers and/or parents mistake poor performance as a result of age for special educational needs:
…at age 11, August- born girls are 72 per cent more likely than September –born girls to be recorded as having non-statemented (less severe) special educational needs, and 25 per cent more likely to be recorded as having statemented special educational needs. For boys these figures are 46 per cent and 14 per cent respectively.
Starting school later is not a policy recommended by the IFS report, but other policy options suggested are discussed later in this research. Some local education authorities appear to be beginning to consider this issue and its effect on policy: the Children and Young People’s Directorate of Somerset County Council has published its ‘Out of Chronological Age Group-Somerset Policy July 2005’.
These findings by the IFS coincide with more general concerns about the age that children start school in the U.K., and with educational psychologists’ understanding of when children are ready to learn:
A government inquiry is recommending that all children be allowed to start school in the September term after their fourth birthday. Sir Tim Rose, the former OFSTED inspector, believes this will help counter the fact that summer-born children fare worse in exams because they start school at a later age…Today’s survey of 700 teachers says many pointed out that children from Scandinavian countries did better in international tests than those in the U.K. despite the fact that they did not start formal schooling until age seven…seven year olds start school ready to learn. They are emotionally ready, socially able, physically content and mature enough to deal with the curriculum in school, bringing good, solid life experience and a thirst for learning.
(Richard Garner, Four-year-olds ‘too young for school’, The Independent, 8th April 2009)
Recent research into brain development published from the mid-1990’s onwards suggests the damage that may be done by attempting to teach young children to read and write too early and reinforces the teachers’ views about the benefits of the Scandinavian system:
From about four to seven years, gestalt hemisphere elaboration makes further expansion of cognitive, language, emotional and physical skills possible. However, it is not until approximately seven to nine years of age, with logic hemisphere elaboration, that the capacity for reading and writing emerges. This suggests that early formal academic learning experiences are inappropriate because children’s brains generally do not have the capacity to master such skills until about seven years of age…
Young children’s brain development appears to be particularly sensitive to stress. Stress raises the level of a steroid hormone that can destroy brain cells and the neural connections needed for later learning. This hormone can trigger hyperactivity, anxiety and impulsive behaviour. It can result in disassociative behaviour where the child switches off and appears uncommunicative…
Downshifting to a psycho-physiological response occurs when a child is confronted with cognitive tasks that are inappropriate, meaningless, repetetive or present a threat of failure.
Hence, environments or teaching strategies that impose undue stress, boredom or fatigue can lead to downshifting, disengagement and disaffection.
Talay-Ongan suggests that second language learning is easier in the early years; learning is enhanced when left and right brain hemispheres are encouraged to work together (as in activities such as music and dance); encouraging visualization can enhance learning and that students and teachers benefit from a good understanding of different learning styles.
(Talay-Ongan: Typical and Atypical Development in Early Childhood, British Psychological Society 1999)
For secondary school teachers, it is worth remembering that in Year 7 and 8, students may, according to Piaget, still be in transition from what he termed the, ‘concrete operational stage’ to the ‘formal operational stage’. Those in Years 7 and 8, especially if young in the year, may apply logic only to things that are tangible or can be seen, and not yet be able to manipulate abstract ideas, make hypotheses, or see the implications of their thinking. Bruner, who did modify Piaget’s theories, suggests negotiation and conflict-movement back and forth between stages or modes of learning- is possible too, dependent on our familiarity or lack of familiarity with a concept.
Central to Margaret Donaldson’s theory of education is the notion of embedded and disembedded thinking. Thinking which is embedded or situated in familiar context makes human sense and so is more easily understood by children and open to reason. When children are asked to think outside the limits of human sense, in unfamiliar, unrealistic or abstract contexts, their thinking is disembedded and fails to make sense to them.
Piaget’s ideas may have been refined and modified significantly over the years, but the practical implications of his theories and those which arose from his work mirror current suggestions for good practice, including the ideas that teaching should be matched to the needs of the individual; that moderately novel situations and experiences supported by open-ended questions can trigger assimilation and accommodation of new ideas; that learning is supported by action and active experiment; and that children need to have control over their learning and be observed and listened to closely to inform our understanding of intellectual development and how best to support each student.
Concerns about age of schooling, the school environment and teachers’ perceptions of boys are all explored by Sarah Ebner, the Times ‘School Gate’ journalist and blogger:
Elaine McDowall is worried about her six year old son, Harry. “He’s always getting told off at school,” she says. “But I know he’s not naughty. He’s just being a boy. He’s loud and boisterous, but loud does not always equal bad. His teacher just wants him to be quiet and concentrate for long periods of time… and it’s turning my son off school”…Within the past few weeks it has been reported that 53 per cent of girls receive five A* to C grade GCSE’s including English and Maths, compared with 44 per cent of male pupils…more girls take A’ Levels than boys. Other research suggests that girls are more likely to go to university (the most recent statistics reveal a 7 per cent gap, which is expected to widen, and that 79 per cent of the children excluded from school are boys…An “unashamed feminist”, Tyre was brought up to worry about the achievement of girls. She was astonished to discover that it is now boys who are falling behind. ..” People think there’s something wrong with boys, but I’d say…it’s what we expect of them instead… They are not allowed to run around and not taught by enough male teachers. There has also been an educational shift away from play towards learning and targets at an earlier age. She is convinced that reading and writing skills are the key to life and educational achievements, but says boys are falling way behind in these skills. This is partly because they start to read later than girls, and never recover from that earlier deficit. But it is also, Tyre argues, because boys are given the wrong books to read.
Views and findings within the research community about the relevance of teacher gender are conflicting. Ebner does raise the issue of male role-models as a legitimate part of the debate about boys’ progress:
And despite a push to attract more men to the profession, figures from the Training and Development Agency for Schools found that half of all children between 5 and 11 have no contact with male teachers-a problem in inner cities where single parent families are more common…”Girls are more focused,” says Zaibien Hunter, 15…”But boys are catching up at our school because there are more male teachers and role models to encourage them.”
(Sarah Ebner: All work and no play is bad for boys, The Times, March 10th 2009)
The article quotes publishers, parents and teachers on the subjects of books for boys and relating to boys in the classroom:
“Boys need a reason to read,” says Sophie Quarterman of Oxford University Press. Jonny Zucker, the author of the Max Flash series, which boasts a 90 per cent male readership, agrees. “Girls have a massive number of tried and tested writers,” he says. “There are not enough of these for boys.”…”It’s also important to get on the boys’ level. If you haven’t got sons or don’t know boys very well, boys can be an irritant in the classroom. They make…jokes, they try to make their friends laugh, they get more tired…You need to allow them to let off steam.”
Tyre says not catering to boys’ needs could have huge ramifications:”…who is going to bring up the children and who are these educated women going to marry?”
The current 2009 DCSF Website tells us,
Helpful techniques for boys include setting clear objectives to help them see exactly what they have to learn, and interaction with the teacher in the whole-class sessions keeps boys motivated and involved. The Secondary National strategy promotes more active and independent learning…fast-paced, lively lessons…an interactive style…rich in oral work and texts and topics which will sustain boys’ interests and cater for diverse tastes.
Focusing now on the literacy issue, the Key Stage 3 National Strategy paper, ‘Gender: raising boys’ achievement’ (2003) found that boys do not universally underachieve and that, ‘there may be greater difference across a cohort of boys than between boys and girls in a given cohort’. Additionally, that, ‘boys tend to be…more represented at the very top and bottom of achievement; girls may bunch towards the mean.’
Research by Moss published in 2007 identifies three types of reader in primary schools: those who ‘can and do; those who ‘can but don’t; and those that ‘can’t yet and don’t’. More boys fall into the ‘can but don’t’ and ‘can’t yet and don’t’ categories, while more girls fall into the first, more positive category. Is this, perhaps, related to the issue of when boys start school? Boys are either not ready to read or already beginning to be disengaged because of the stress of reading schemes and regimes encountered in Key Stage 1. Kindergarten or nursery education would provide for keen and able early readers on an individual basis.
More girls than boys saw themselves as readers. Boys see readers as ‘geeky nerds’, although more boys than girls believed reading was more important than T.V. or listening to music. Popular reading choices cited by girls seem to link with their personal and social lives, their sharing of ideas and interaction with others: magazines, emails, and social network sites. Boys read more newspapers, comics, graphic novels and manuals. There seems to be something very appealing to boys about the combination of text with pictures, illustrations and diagrams.
Helen Wolstencroft has written and presented information about boys and visual literacy for the Essex Writing Project, with valuable teaching ideas using film, ICT and still image as a starting point for writing. It is one way of making learning investigative and interactive using multi-media texts, encouraging analysis of style and structure in visual media as a way in to awareness of the same in writing and offers boys choice of access points-something attractive and helpful to male students.
Boys and girls confidence and enjoyment in reading seems to have held steady since 2003 (Sainsbury and Clarkson, NFER 2008). Other research from Clark and Pythian-Sence in 2008 suggests that interest is a more powerful influence than choice in reading, and that it is with writing that choice of subject matters more.
Dr. Moss, from the Institute of Education in London, feels that children’s perceived proficiency as readers is made highly visible in the classroom. Boys in the ‘can’t yet’ reading category are most likely to choose to read non-fiction, perhaps partly because non-fiction books are less likely to reveal the reader’s lower level of proficiency to his peers through the design characteristics of the book. She hypothesises that boys’ who prefer non-fiction are then lead to texts which are linguistically more complex and therefore more difficult for the beginning reader to read, thus increasing the gap between failure and success.
She points out that children who read, read fiction; girls network more around their reading than boys; and that avid boy readers often seem to get considerable advice from home to keep them reading. She tells us that performance driven classrooms create few spaces for supporting wider reading or sustaining networks of readers, yet wide reading enhances writing (Barrs and Cork: 2001, The Reader in the Writer).
Moss concludes that teachers need to address the social standing of those at the bottom of the literacy hierarchy, whether girls or boys; build a reading culture which expands the choices children make, and find more opportunities for children’s reading to feed their writing in unexpected ways.
(Moss: 2008, Gender and Achievement: Issues for Research)
A success story about fiction reading is reported in ‘ListenWith Graham’ (Warwick Mansell: The Independent Thursday 9th April 2009). The children’s author, G.P.Taylor, visits primary schools on a voluntary basis to read stories.
At one primary, with a high number of SES and SEN students, this is part of a wider project to encourage reading for pleasure. Older students read to younger ones, the school has a twenty minute reading session each day for all the school population and the school is signed up to the Government-funded “Reading Connects” scheme which aims to develop whole school promotion of reading.
The Head is quoted as saying, ‘a group of boys who normally played football at lunch time sat reading Graham’s books; children would read snatches…in between lessons…’. This is one example of outside visitors and role models having a powerful influence on students’ reading and learning habits.
Boys are sometimes subject to “peer policing” of gender identity, so that reading, intellectual pursuits and academic success are derided. Research has shown that girls are prepared to be more open about their aspirations than boys. In addition, boys may reject subjects that they see as being “open-textured” or “female”: subjects involving emotional responses, linguistic ambiguity, or with no single correct answer.
(Equally, girls do not appear to be attracted in large numbers to subjects that they see as “close-textured” – or “male” :subjects involving linear thinking according to clear and discoverable rules, information capable of reduction to numbers, or precise language.
Nevertheless, recent research by Jones and Myhill challenges these gender-led theories and suggest teachers should take care not to over-simplify these tendencies, especially in the area of literacy:
Most studies look at boys and girls as two opposing groups whereas we looked at four groups: high achieving boys and girls, and underachieving boys and girls. This provided us with some surprises. English, or literacy, is not preferred by girls. Instead English is a subject for high achieving pupils, both boys and girls, whereas the underachievers, and especially the underachieving girls, expressed a marked dislike for English, especially reading and writing.
(Jones and Myhill: Noisy boys and invisible girls?, Literacy Today)
The belief among teachers that boys prefer factual reading and writing and lots of structure should also be treated with some skepticism. In fact, the boys expressed a liking for creative and narrative writing where they had the freedom to choose content and to use their imagination. This may well be relevant not just to English teachers, but across the curriculum in Humanities and Arts subjects when a creative writing task could be a tool for learning.
In one high school, ‘there was a clear dislike for the more functional, content-led writing encountered in other subjects’ and research by OFSTED suggests that freedom of subject matter within the context of a form specified by the teacher is an effective strategy in encouraging boys to write.
(OFSTED, 2003: Yes he can, schools where boys write well)
On School Gate (February 09, 2009), The Times online Blog, children’s author Joe Craig argues that secondary schools stop children, especially boys, being creative:
To be creative, you have to be wrong most of the time…being wrong doesn’t go down very well at school…I think creativity is being educated out of kids when they get into secondary school , and it’s a big problem.. . When I visit a primary school, I’m often bombarded by dozens of ideas that amuse, surprise, entertain and sometimes even astound me. But within just a couple of years that ability to conjure up the wacky, the off-the-wall, the daring-the creative-has virtually disappeared.
Craig tells us the biggest drop-off in reading and creativity is in Year 7 but thinks it is not just that creativity diminishes because they read less, but also that they read less because creativity is doused in the classroom. He says that boys tend to go for story ideas which are explosive, spectacular and often violent or absurd. Girls ideas-often about family, the domestic world and real life situations can appear to their teacher to be more sensible and considered. He suggests that the teachers find the boys’ imaginative world mysterious or even dangerous whereas Craig sees them as exciting and risk-taking. He argues that it is very important that teachers respond positively to boys’ ideas, never laughing at them or putting obstacles in the way of writing. He thinks we should not, ‘censor…imagination before it’s even had the chance to get going’.
Girls tend to be able to plan and organise their work more effectively than boys. They are also more able to apply their skills to different learning contexts. Boys interrupt more frequently and answer more often, even when they do not know the answer. Girls talk less in class and in groups but they are more likely to ask for help.
Boys tend to over-estimate their academic abilities. Girls generally underestimate their abilities and work harder to compensate. Boys tend to act first and think later. Girls like to think before they act and they are slower at becoming involved in practical activities than boys.
In general, boys are found to be more likely to take an oppositional stance with figures of authority and are more likely to express a dislike of school. This may well be related to a sense of a lack of achievement in areas that they find challenging.
Research suggests that boys are externalising self-esteem issues by rejection of the person they see as “judging” them such as teachers and parents. In contrast, girls tend to internalize self-esteem issues.
The triangle of relationships: they way in which we, as teachers, treat students, also affects the way in which they treat each other. In teacher-pupil interaction, Mitsos and Browne (1998) found that teachers have lower expectations of males (for example, they are more willing to extend deadlines) and are more tolerant of their disruptive behaviour.
The gender research of Myhill and Jones also challenges some assumptions and commonly held views relating to gender. They research the classroom interaction patterns experienced by boys and girls.
Myhill asserts that pupil achievement, not gender, is the more important determining factor in who is likely to join in whole class discussions. The nature and quality of this interaction is, in turn, is an indicator of student understanding, engagement, motivation and learning. She finds that high achievers are most likely to join in positive forms of interaction such as making voluntary contributions and joining in collective responses:
Underachieving boys’ reluctance to participate emerges in Year 1, by Year 4 the underachieving girl is behaving in the same way. Additionally, the older high-achieving boys begin to display similar interaction patterns to underachievers, whereas high achieving girls remain active participants and on task throughout their primary school careers. Myhill uses these findings to critique whole class teaching and its benefits for low achieving students.
(Myhill: Bad Boys and Good Girls?, Patterns of Interaction and Response in Whole Class Teaching, British Educational Research Journal 2002, 28 (3), 339-352)
For the secondary school teacher, these findings suggest that we must consider how best to promote a sense of confidence in achievement across a range of abilities and how to adapt our teaching and learning to ensure active and positive participation by all boys and by lower ability girls.
The work of Myhill and Jones leads often to the suggestion that it is the unconscious attitudes of the teachers and students that is driving achievement:
…the predominant perception is that teachers treat boys more negatively than girls, and that this perception increases with age. Pupils speak of teachers’ expectations of boys and girls as being different, more being expected of girls both in terms of achievement and behaviour. Unsolicited, the pupils make reference to the gender of the teacher as pertinent, female teachers being perceived as less influenced by gender expectations. The article raises concerns as to the role of education in amplifying society’s stereotypes rather than challenging them and aiming for a climate of gender equity in the classroom.
(Jones and Myhill: ‘She doesn’t shout at no girls’: pupils perceptions of gender equity in the classroom Cambridge Journal of Education, Volume 36, Number 1/ March 2006, pp. 99-113(15))
Raising awareness amongst teachers of unconscious attitudes and how they might influence our perceptions and expectations of boy and girl students seems to me to be a crucial part of tackling underachievement:
The perceived characteristics of the high-achieving girl are presented as describing all girls. There appears to be a tendency to associate boys with underachievement and girls with high achievement.
(Jones and Myhill: ‘Troublesome boys’ and ‘compliant girls’: gender identity and perceptions of achievement and underachievement, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Volume 25, Issue 5 2004, pp. 547-561)
…underachievement in girls is often overlooked or rendered invisible. Underachievement is concerned with performance. It becomes a matter of concern if teachers perceive boys as the vessel of potential and of latent ability, while the high achievements of girls are seen to be about performance, not ability.
(Jones and Myhill: Seeing things differently: teachers’ constructions of underachievement, Gender and Education, Volume 16, Number 4, 2004, pp. 531-546(16))
Research presented in the article ‘Noisy boys and invisible girls ?’ involved interviewing teachers who were all committed to equal opportunities, yet in many cases, comments revealed the existence of some strong gender stereotypes. It was evident that there was a gap between the strongly held belief in equality and views which had been shaped by upbringing, social experience and the realities of the classroom:
Boys were portrayed very negatively as lazy, disruptive, aggressive, with poor concentration and less likely to take education seriously. Girls on the other hand want to please, apply themselves, are quieter and efficient, and are more enthusiastic. Boys who were high achieving were repeatedly described as atypical…high achieving girls were seen as typical girls, while underachieving girls appeared to be almost invisible, with no typical description attributed to them…Boys were twice as likely to be identified by their teachers as underachievers…a third of all the boys in the sample were identified as underachievers. This set of expectations surpasses any outcome revealed in national tests or at GCSE. Statistically, in a class of thirty pupils, the gap in achievement in literacy between boys and girls is equivalent to about two boys doing less well than the girls, with the rest of the class roughly parallel in terms of achievement by gender. This suggests negative expectations of boys, but it is also not good for the invisible, underachieving girls, whose needs are not recognized…” If it turns out that the bulk of the kids in the class who are sitting there compliantly are girls…then they’ve got as much of a problem, because nobody’s suggesting they can do better…”
This suggests we are unconsciously being controlled by stereotyping we are brought up with and pass on, and stereotyping we do between ourselves as teachers.
Boys tend to be more represented at the very top and bottom of achievement; girls may bunch around the mean. Does this contribute to prejudices about boys’ laziness or incompetence, unconsciously affecting perception, and feeding in to stereotypes? In fact, boys do not universally underachieve; there may be a greater difference across a cohort of boys than between boys and girls in a given cohort. Boys are not a problem in themselves.
We also appear to be uninterested in average girls. The children in Myhill’s study also felt that girls went unnoticed, although they expressed it as a point about boys being picked up more for bad behaviour than girls are.
Perhaps even more worrying, is the finding that:
The children…thought that girls were cleverer than boys and more likely to succeed.
As the authors observe, this is a significant shift in pupil perceptions in recent decades, reflecting a positive growing confidence in girl but a worrying decline in confidence amongst boys. ‘The Gender Agenda’ interim report states that at age 11, girls showed better ‘pro-social behaviour and had more positive behavioural self-image, whereas the boys showed more ‘hyperactivity’ and a poorer self-image with regard to behaviour. Myhill tells us that:
Underachieving pupils take little part in whole-class teaching episodes and underachieving boys withdraw from positive class interactions very early in their school careers.
There is of course no prospect of Farlingaye or its feeder primaries ceasing to be co-educational schools! Nevertheless, it is reassuring to note that up-to-date research on the recurring argument about single sex schooling as beneficial, finds in favour of co-education. Research in Australia recognizes that it has been widely demonstrated that boys attract more teacher attention than girls in co-educational classrooms and girls can be reluctant to express their viewpoints in front of boys, especially when the teacher is inexperienced; with experience, teachers employed strategies to redress the balance. However, the researcher notes that this:
…does not necessarily mean that the girls are disadvantaged…boys asked more trivial questions to gain the teacher’s attention, whereas girls were more likely to seek clarification for their learning problems from friends or their seating partner.
(Smith: Gender differentiation: Gender differences in academic achievement and self-concept in co-educational and single-sex schools, 2008)
Smith also cites another earlier extensive English research project by Dale which concluded that the co-educational school is a ‘happier community’ and,’not at the expense of academic progress’. The findings may be unreliable because they are now dated and were based on grammar not comprehensive schools, but evidence from a government committee of enquiry into the teaching of Mathematics in the 1980’s and more recent research from the 80’s and 90’s tends to back up Dale’s findings. Although there may be some improvement of confidence in Maths amongst girls in a single-sex classroom, attainment is unaffected. In 1987, another researcher, Gray writes that,
Research reviewed leads to the conclusion that type of school makes little difference to gender inequalities (especially those suffered by girls); that single-sex classes for specific purposes in co-educational schools are only of limited value; and that new ways of reducing sexism in all types of school, whether mixed or sex-segregated, must be found.
Smith’s own study looked at student’s ‘self-concept’ in different school settings and at their attainment between 1982 and 1986. He found that:
…self-concept scores were higher for students attending co-educational classes than for those in single-sex classes. These advantages occurred for both boys and girls…the shift to co-educational classes (by one school in the study) made no difference to either boys’ or girls’ achievement over the five year period in Maths or English. Girls remained significantly ahead of boys in English over the five year period, while boys scored slightly better than girls over the same period in Maths.
In summary, the belief that co-educational schools are good for boys’ achievement and bad for girls’ achievement received no support from these results.
As with the work of Jones and Myhill, Smith did find embedded ideas revealing an interesting pattern amongst the teaching community of the schools taking part in the research project:
They told us their perceptions were based partly on personal experience, but also upon the general community belief that co-educational schools are good for boys and bad for girls.
The teachers were all surprised by the more neutral results of the study. Once again, it seems that the teachers’judgement and perception of what takes place in the classroom can be coloured markedly by pre-conceived ideas which could affect adversely the management and delivery of a lesson. In 1990, Smith had completed ten years of research. Two schools in the study which had been single-sex, but had become co-educational at the outset of the project, were revisited. Smith found that:
Despite all the changes that had occurred at the two schools…self-concept levels had risen and remained at a relatively high level. It is concluded that there were social advantages for girls and boys attending the two co-educational schools… Co-education was found in this study to have no academic disadvantages for either girls or boys… teacher attitudes remained ambivalent.
On ‘School Gate’, the Times newspaper’s lifestyle and education blog, the master of Dulwich College, Graham Able (obviously with an interest in promoting single-sex schooling) thinks that boys learn more visually than girls and need to “run around more and let off steam”. In reply, Dr. Alice Sullivan says:
“I don’t think there’s any evidence that boys do worse in co-educational schools…It’s very fashionable to say…but there’s very little evidence to support it.”
On the other hand, she does concede that single sex schools don’t stereotype students as much:
“Boys are more likely to do humanities and modern languages, while girls are encouraged to take Maths and sciences.”
Yet Angela Phillips, author of ‘The Trouble with Boys’ maintains that, “The social importance of putting girls and boys together outweigh anything else.”
In a timely way, The Gender Agenda is about to be published by the DCSF. Launched in 2008, it is an initiative whose brief is, through a series of activities, including action research in classrooms, to identify and disseminate practical ideas for improving the learning, motivation, involvement and attainment of particular underperforming groups of boys and girls.
Its aims include raising awareness of gender and achievement issues in schools, particularly in relation to literacy and English; identifying and disseminating to schools good practice which improves the achievement and progression of specific groups; identifying and disseminating current and relevant research; encouraging, promoting and supporting emerging and new classroom practice to improve achievement and progression overall, and considering ways to maintain and extend good practice beyond the duration of the initiative.
Here, some of its main findings are reproduced to show in summary form some of the most up-to-date current research on gender:
From Emerging key themes and messages
• The Gender Gap
o The gender gap is most clearly visible and is widest in English and at all key stages. It can be closed in primary schools and narrowed in secondary schools if certain, pedagogic, individual pupil approaches and whole- school approaches are followed
o Gender gaps in Mathematics are confined to boys outperforming girls at Key Stage 2 and are not significant at any other key stage
o In Science, the gender gap is not significant at any key stage
• Reading
o More boys than girls, at primary school, fall into the ‘Can but don’t (read) ‘ Can’t yet and don’t (read)
o Girls network more round reading than boys at primary school
o Concerning independent reading, girls read more, are more accurate, and read more fiction than boys
o More girls than boys see themselves as readers and are more positive about reading
• Pupils interest and choice
o Tapping into pupils interests and giving them choice in reading and writing can motivate both boys and girls
• Behaviour
o Girls show better ‘pro-social’ behaviour and behavioural self-image
• Stereotypical attitudes to Mathematics and English
o Most pupils believe that Maths is a boys’ subject where boys do better and English a girls’ subject where girls do better
• Gender and ICT
o Teachers have perceptions of gender stereotypes around ICT and these impact on both the perceptions and actual competence that pupils demonstrate…
• Whole school factors that support boys’ achievement
o Praise and rewards for achievement
o Pupil voice and valuing opinions can raise boys’ self-esteem
o School ethos
o In co-educational schools where gender constructions are less accentuated boys tend to do better
• Role models
o There is no evidence that the gender of the teacher influences pupil outcomes on any attainment measure for boys or girls , or that it improves boys’ engagement with school
(DCSF: The Gender Agenda Interim Report, December 2008)
Many of these findings repeat or echo what I have already reviewed. Some points contradict the ideas of other researchers and commentators-such as the ideas about the importance of teacher gender.
As part of the Gender Agenda, a ‘Gapbusters’ investigation into seven primary and nine secondary schools that consistently close or narrow the gender gap in English yields useful information.
At The Gender Agenda Autumn 2008 seminars Rob Batho, DCSF Schools Standards Adviser, who undertook the research, pointed out that a number of the findings from his enquiry echo those from other recent research, including the large scale ‘Raising Boys’ Achievement study by Warrington and Younger (2005) and the OFSTED (2003) report ‘Yes he can: Schools where boys write well, in that many of the schools he investigated did not do anything particularly differently for boys and for girls. This:
…supports ‘Skelton and Francis’ (2007) finding that “It is in schools where gender constructions are less accentuated that boys tend to do better-and strategies that work to reduce constructions of gender difference that are most effective in facilitating boys’ achievement”.
Helpful approaches might include,
Strategies to help deconstruct gender:
• A whole school approach
➢ Tackling stereotypical constructions of masculinity and femininity
➢ Expectations of high achievements for both boys and girls
➢ Instigating classroom discussion and thinking about gender constructions, their manifestations and implications
➢ Using a wide variety of approaches to literacy-including using literacy as a vehicle for deconstructing stereotypes
(Francis and Skelton: Gender and Achievement Presentation,The Gender Agenda)
The presentation concluded by emphasizing the need to encourage students and staff to deconstruct gender positions.
Boys from the Skelton/Francis schools who were interviewed said that English was fun and that the main approaches they liked and found helpful were speaking and listening activities used with reading and writing tasks; drama activities to open up texts; collaborative learning in groups for discussion of texts and of writing tasks; teacher modelling of reading and writing; a range of tasks for writing (not clear whether this meant choice, variety or both) and access to a wide range of books.
These are all approaches that could be used successfully in other subjects, once again some more obviously in Humanities and Arts, whilst others could be adapted to practically any subject. Certainly, in terms of pedagogy, the main factors for success were: including speaking and listening in lessons as a way for students to explore texts and prepare for writing, modelling of both reading and writing, and using ICT to engage students.
Additionally, the main factors affecting school as a fertile learning environment were promoting pupil safety and well-being; a strong emphasis on listening to the views of students; encouraging risk- taking and responsibility by both teachers and students; and enriching the curriculum through activities such as out of school visits and visitors coming to work with pupils.
One piece of action research conducted as part of the Gender Agenda links to an emphasis on listening to students and giving them responsibility for their own teaching and learning. ‘Students as Researchers (STARS) aimed to enhance classroom challenge, particularly in the core subjects. Girls’ confidence and skills as interviewers improved as a result of taking part in the project and they are now being asked to co-plan more challenging lessons with their teachers.
In another project-with considerable funding implications- laptops were provided to all Year 7 and Year 12 students, to work on a ‘virtual learning platform’. The pilot scheme was evaluated as successful in helping Year 7 students to be more competent independent learners.
Aside from the work of the Gender Agenda researchers, other new findings are emerging. Researchers at the Independent Schools Council say that:
Boys who play sport or take part in after-school clubs are more likely to do well in exams…The difference that extra-curricular activities make to boys’ exam performance is more marked than the effect on girls at GCSE, they found…” Boys really want a hinterland to their studies. They don’t want to work in a vacuum and need a sense of life beyond the classroom to make the classroom more palatable…If their lessons are boring, girls will compensate for that, whereas with boys it explodes in your face a bit.”…Previous studies have suggested a strong positive link between pupil participation in sport and academic achievement but have not found a gender difference.
(Joanna Sugden: The perfect excuse to get out of the classroom: all work and no play makes Jack a dumb boy, The Times June 3rd 2009)
At the end of the article, Jacqueline Eccles of the Psychology department at the University of Michigan is reported as saying that her research found no gender difference and suggested that the difference arises only from the fact that more boys take up sport. Whatever the fine detail, a school culture offering and encouraging sport and extra-curricular activities will support academic achievement for boys and girls.
The forest school philosophy has captured the imagination of many professionals. In 2002, a seminar was held at Bishops Wood Centre in Worcester to assess the national interest. As a result, a Forest School England network was created.
Some children are given priority of attendance – these include children with challenging behaviour or identified as having additional or specific needs. From taking part in forest school, children such as these have been observed to develop control over their behaviour, improved concentration and independence and develop their social and emotional skills. Other children previously timid and lacking in confidence within the normal nursery environment have become confident in their own abilities within the forest and are seen to move away from reliance on adults.
The children quickly learn the boundaries within which they must work. They respond to the sense of freedom and stick to the few rules laid down for their safety. They go out in all weathers, all year round, exploring and learning from the seasons and environment changes. Suitable clothing can be provided so that children get the most out of messy opportunities.
The woodland is secure – it is possible to encourage children to move away from adult interaction and become more responsible for each other and for themselves.
Developing outside areas and outside lessons could be a stimulating approach at all key stages.
3. The Picture at Farlingaye
I looked at the reading scores of the current Year 8 cohort (2008-2009) to gain a sense of how the year group compared to national patterns of achievement in literacy and English. This year group was chosen firstly because it is possible to look at changes in scores for the 10+ and 12+ exam, and secondly because of the potential for tracking, surveying and piloting strategies with a year group which is early on in its secondary school career.
As we know, overall, Farlingaye students perform better than the national average. Nevertheless, the scores show the same pattern as is described above: girls tend to bunch towards the mean while boys scores have a wider spread across the spectrum. On average, the girls outperform the boys by 5 per cent.
Year 8 Boys with 12+ reading scores, FHS 2008-2009
|RS |RS |RS |RS |RS |RS |RS |RS |
|61-70 |71-80 |81-90 |91-100 |101-110 |111-120 |121-130 |131-140 |
|4% |5% |7% |23% |31% |18% |8% |4% |
Year 8 Girls with 12+ reading scores, FHS 2008-2009
|RS |RS |RS |RS |RS |RS |RS |RS |
|61-70 |71-80 |81-90 |91-100 |101-110 |111-120 |121-130 |131-140 |
|0% |4% |14% |21% |28% |19% |12% |2% |
Average: Boys: 29% Girls: 34%
I also compared any decline of progress for students in the year group, from the 10+ to the 12+ reading score. Some of the cohort could not be included as they had neither or only one test result. Students were defined as having declined in progress if their score dropped beyond a 4 point ‘allowance’ either side of the mark range, which is counted as having a stable score between 10+ and 12+.
In the cohort, 48 boys and 38 girls were found to have declined in reading score. The average rate of drop was very similar for boys and girls: 9.25 and 9.74 respectively. The starting points for the decline in score were also mapped and found to be quite similar, except that, as I have already said, girls tend to bunch more around the mean and boys spread more from the lowest to highest possible scores. Finally, the students around the mean were of some interest: the boys were stronger at 10+, and the percentages had reversed at 12+.
Year 8 Boys 10+ scores for those with a decline in reading score at 12+:
|RS |RS |RS |RS |RS |RS |RS |
|71-80 |81-90 |91-100 |101-110 |111-120 |121-130 |131-140 |
|6% |4% |29% |33% |16% |6% |4% |
Year 8 Girls 10+ scores for those with a decline in reading score at 12+:
|RS |RS |RS |RS |RS |RS |RS |
|71-80 |81-90 |91-100 |101-110 |111-120 |121-130 |131-140 |
|0% |6% |34% |28% |16% |4% |0% |
Perhaps the most significant conclusion to be drawn from the findings is that there exists no dramatic difference in the figures: therefore supporting the research which suggests that teacher perception of underachieving boys versus underachieving girls is skewed, with boys being judged negatively and girls being invisible. Once again, perhaps boys are more visible and judged more harshly partly because of an unconscious sense that the boys are a little more likely to be at extremes of low achievement and high achievement.
At the end of Key Stage 3, SAT results demonstrate that students perform better at FHS in English, Maths and Science than the Suffolk average and the national average. The percentages of students achieving level 5+ were quite consistent across the three subjects but the percentages achieving level 6+ were 46.9% for English; 67.9% for Maths and 53.8% for Science. Nationally the percentages at 6+ are 35%, 57% and 41% respectively. If the tests are comparable, the children are better at Science and Maths at age 13 and 14 than English.
Core KS3 results are analysed by gender and, ‘There is a marked difference in the performance of boys and girls in English. This is a national trend and the English department is working to address this issue.’
Analysis of teacher assessment levels shows that, ‘Girls appear to be performing above the level of the boys in most subjects. The difference is quite significant in a number of subjects, in particular MFL, Music History and English. PE is the exception and the only subject where boys are outperforming the girls.
(S. Hargadon, Report to Governors on Examination Results-KS3 2008)
All of the subjects with the widest difference in boys’ and girls’ attainment rely on linguistic and literacy skills closely related to the development of competence in the three areas of study – reading; writing; speaking and listening- in English.
Concern about top-end and boys’ achievement is echoed in the Head of Department’s KS3 analysis:
Whilst 70 students attained L7 in Reading, only 37 did so on Writing. The percentage of boys attaining overall L7 is, worryingly, now in single figures (7.2%)…Further whole faculty training is needed in securing top-level performance, especially with boys…High-performance writing has also to be a key target.
Strategies already used successfully include question by question analysis of scripts to give insights for teaching and help provide resources and tips for teachers; targeting high ability boys’ performance; and booster sessions for middle ability students.
(M. Taylor, Curriculum Review 2008)
In Maths, on the other hand, ‘There is very little difference between girls and boys achievement. This should help narrow the gender gap further at GCSE level.
(C. Moran, Curriculum Review 2008)
Maths department strategies for improvement results included the use of revision packs over Easter; and intermediate booster sessions.
In Science, ‘At level 7 we exceeded FFT estimates by a significant amount. we fell short of FFT estimates at 6+ and 5+. The boys’ results at these levels were below that of the girls.’
(D. Williams, Curriculum Review 2008)
Strategies in Science considered effective were the well planned schemes of work enabling exciting and stimulating lessons; use of past papers for revision and tests; issuing revision guides; analysis of previous results and mock papers to target parts of the curriculum students have found most challenging; and targeted booster sessions. It is also intended to give students KS3 targets based on FFT data; and incorporating new ICT opportunities into schemes of work.
In ICT tests, 86% of girls attained Level 6+ against 52% of boys.
In ICT, ‘we do need to look at how we can raise the achievement of girls to be more in line with the girls at Level 6 and above…introducing a new SOW this year…It is very interactive.’
(Head of ICT, Curriculum Review 2008)
Breakdowns of grades and residuals at GCSE in 2008 show that in absolute terms, girls outperform boys in English but achieve less well in Maths.
Using residuals, it can be seen that relative to other subjects, girls outperform boys in English. The boys ‘keep up’ quite well around the mean and even up to grade A but show a worrying decline at A*-18.8% of girls attain this grade as opposed to 7.8% of boys. The boys account for a larger tail at the other end of the grade spectrum.
A graph showing the percentage of A*-C grades overall for the year shows fairly consistent lines for boys and girls, but the girls do always outperform boys by 5-10%.
A tracking of the gender gap at GCSE across subjects between 1997 and 2008 shows that girls out-perform boys consistently by approximately 10-15% .There is a ‘crimping’ at either end of the spectrum of achievement- a narrowing of the gap- between students gaining 1 or 2 A*-C grades and those gaining 12 A*-C grades.
This contrasts with higher education outcomes, where a crossover is seen at either end of the spectrum: men doing both better and worse than women at the extremes. This can be explained by the coursework and modular element of many school results, compared to the results from university based predominantly on final examination. It reminds us that boys tend to be risk takers and that some may be disadvantaged by the coursework and modular style of the current exam system.
Does it matter that boys have male teachers and male role models in school? Teaching based research suggests not, but some psychologists may disagree. I looked at the staffing of the primary pyramid and FHS itself to establish male involvement in our boys’ school careers.
The current staffing picture for our feeder primary school pyramid in the academic year 2008-2009 is as follows:
Often, a male member of staff is either the Head or Deputy Head (meaning less contact time with students) or the custodian or cleaner: an interesting picture for the boys in terms of job types: either with an academic and management role, or a technical and practical role.
Ten of the twelve schools responded to enquiries about the gender make up of their teaching and teaching support staff. Numbers were calculated not on the basis of full-time teacher equivalents for full and part-time staff, but instead according to the numbers of different staff of each gender students encountered at the school, whether on a full or part-time basis.
Of an overall number of 182 teaching and learning support staff, only fifteen were men: an average 1.5 men in each school. Two schools had no male staff in the classroom at all.
On our faculty staff, men are much better represented, but still make up only a little over one third of the overall teaching population. . In this school, men and women are both very well and evenly represented in senior and middle management roles, whereas nationally women are still under-represented in senior management roles in education.
Amongst support staff that work alongside teachers in the classroom-the classroom assistants and learning support assistants- 1 out of 25 is male.
Faculty by faculty, proportions of male and female staff and the gender of the head of faculty often reflects the traditional popularity of a subject with boys and girls. For example, The Head of MFL is female, and there is one male teacher out of a faculty of nine. Nevertheless, in more ‘male’ subjects such as Maths and Science, the weighting is only a little more balanced, but not reversed, because of the overall imbalance of gender among teaching staff in the school. For example, in Science, the Head of Faculty is male, and there are 8 male teachers in a faculty of 19.
To give a general, ‘broad brushstroke’ picture of the possible links between social and behavioural difficulties and boys’ progress, I counted the number of boys and girls on the SEN register (as P, A, or S status) for behavior, ability, Aspergers and social issues.
Once again this did follow the trend of large research studies: in Year 8 at FHS, there are 46 boys and 30 girls on the register-a third more boys than girls being impeded by specific or general learning difficulties. This is significant, and suggests my interest in social and psychological studies about boys may be explored usefully, in order to impact on teaching and learning strategies to support boys’ achievement.
4. Review of Social and Psychological Literature of Potential Relevance to the Research
Much research links boys’ underachievement with general patterns of social change. The notion of the “lost male” has been suggested, due to changing patterns of employment which do not require traditional skills. There is a movement from ‘hard skills’ to ‘soft skills’ in a service sector economy, which may be having its greatest effect on working class men.
The 1970s onwards marked a change in the position and ambitions of women.
‘When gender first began to be investigated by sociologists of education, the focus was largely on female underachievement at every level of the educational system, and the ways in which traditional ideas about the proper role of women in society prevented them from achieving their full potential. However, females have markedly improved their educational performance during the 1980’s and 1990’s, so that the contemporary situation, while not without its problems and issues for girls in schools is one where the educational opportunities open to females have possibly never been greater. Wilkinson (1994) argues that this is part of the Genderquake in which fundamental changes in attitudes towards female role in society has been achieved. Prominent among the ‘transformed circumstances’ of women is a more positive attitude towards education as a means of improving chances at work.’
(Evidence of Gender Differences in Educational Attainment 30 January 2000: Yellow Education Disc 2)
Ongoing research into how the brain operates by the medical profession suggests differences between boys and girls in neural plasticity. This is difficult territory: there is an uncomfortable fit between the desire to avoid stereotyping and recognition of the gendered brain. Nevertheless, if the notion of neural plasticity is accepted, there may be a mismatch between a “one size fits all” educational system and the gendered brain.
Gender aside, ‘experts in brain development know that emotions are the ignition switch for learning’. (Isaacs, How Children Learn)
The most recently evolved part of the brain, the neo-cortex, giving us the ability to solve problems, discern relationships and patterns of meaning. It generates meaning from sensory data constantly.
We know that the emotional mind can over-ride the rational mind. When we are in the grip of anger, stressed or fearful, or ‘head over heels in love’, the limbic system in the brain is prevailing. This filters data and is the site for long term memory and goal setting. It governs our concept of value and truth. A small structure called the amygdale in the limbic region scans every incident for trouble. It charges into action without considering the consequences and in moments of crisis or intense passion the emotional brain dominates.
How children function each day and throughout life is determined by both rational intelligence and emotional intelligence. Evidence suggests that those who are emotionally literate are at an advantage in life. Learning involves developing our feelings alongside our ability to think and act.
In order to do this in an educational setting, students need:
1. Safety, security, unconditional love and nurturing
2. Stimulating environments
3. Experimental learning opportunities and real life tests
4. Useful and timely performance feedback
Steve Biddulph is a world- renowned psychologist and children’s author. His ideas about the links between brain development and boys specific care needs might make us consider that at primary and secondary level, male teaching staff matter, and might be a rich source of inspiration for generating ideas about teaching and management strategies.
He divides boys’ development into three stages:
In the years between birth and six, boys need lots of affection so they can ‘learn to love’. Talking and teaching one-to-one helps them to connect to the world. The mother is usually the best person to provide this…
At about the age of six, boys show a strong interest in maleness, and the father becomes the primary parent. His interest and time become critical. The mother’s part remains important…
From about fourteen years of age, boys need mentors-other adults who care about them personally and help them move gradually into the larger world. Old societies provided initiation to mark this stage, and mentors were much more available.
Single mothers can raise boys well but must search carefully for good, safe, male role models…
He explains characteristics of boys:
Testosterone in varying degrees affects every boy. It gives him growth spurts, makes him want to be active, and makes him competitive and in need of strong guidelines and a safe, ordered environment.
It triggers significant changes:
1. At four-into activity and boyishness
2. At thirteen-into rapid growth and disorientation; and
3. At fourteen-into testing limits and early manhood
The boy with testosterone in his bloodstream likes to know who is the boss but also must be treated fairly. Bad environments bring out the worst in him. The boy with lots of testosterone needs special help to develop leadership qualities and channel his energies in good ways…Some girls have a lot of testosterone but, on the whole, it’s a boy thing-and needs our understanding, not blame or ridicule. Testosterone equals vitality and it’s our job to honour it and steer it into healthy directions.
He offers practical solutions for challenges boys face because of ‘boy hormones’:
Because boys often:
… have testosterone surges making them sometimes argumentative and restless-especially around age fourteen...calmly guide them through conflicts-settle them down with reasoning, not yelling at or attacking them. Be clear that they need to show good manners always, and never use or threaten violence…
…have growth spurts that make them vague and disorganized, especially at age thirteen. (This applies to girls too.)…get involved in organizing them, teaching them systems…having a routine…
Have bursts of physical energy needing to be expressed…be sure to have lots of space and time for exercise, moving about…
…have a slower rate of brain development, affecting fine motor skills, in early primary…delay starting primary school…
…have fewer connections from the language half to the sensory half of the brain…read to them, talk to them a lot and explain things, especially from ages one to eight…
…have a need for a clear set of rules, and knowing who is in charge…have good, calm, orderly environments at home and school…
…have a more muscular body…specifically teach them not to hit or hurt others. Also teach them to use words to communicate…
…have a predisposition to act first without thinking things through..talk with them often in a friendly way about options, choices , ways to solve problems and what they can do in situations in their lives.
Biddulph believes that, ‘sometimes Attention Deficit Disorder is actually Dad Deficit Disorder’, not necessarily because the father is absent or not in the family home, but because western society often uses men as ‘work-machines’, so that fathers do not have the time, nor confidence that it should be a priority, to be a father spending time with the children.
In a chapter chiefly about mothers and sons, Biddulph advises, ‘Giving birth to a boy brings to the surface how you feel about males in general. Be careful not to land too many prejudices onto this innocent little boy’.
This is a salutary reminder that boys may be taught by men and women who, through their own upbringing, may be prone to ridicule of, exasperation with, or severity towards boys, without ever consciously intending to be biased or undermining. We have already seen that Myhill’s research uncovers some unconscious bias in teachers.
Biddulph puts forward specific directives for boys’ schooling:
1. Allow boys to start school one year later than girls, when their fine motor skills are ready…
2. Vigorously recruit males (young and mature age) into teaching and also involve more of the right kind of men from the community to provide one-to-one coaching and support.
3. Redesign schooling to be more physical, energetic, concrete and challenging.
4. Target boys’ weak areas (literacy especially) with boy- specific intensive language programmes, right from the start of primary school (and have separate English classes in secondary school).
5. Build good personal relationships with boys, through smaller groupings and less teacher changes in secondary school, so as to meet boys’ needs for fathering and mentoring.
6. Be alert to the fact that problem behaviour can be a sign of learning difficulties and investigate this as soon as possible.
Some of these directives ‘teach grandma to suck eggs’. Some are debateable or contradict previous research already discussed in this report, but all remind the teacher of the need for a dispassionate and understanding approach to the education of boys.
In common with other researchers and educationalists, the importance of sport ‘done well’ is raised by Biddulph:
Sport can have huge benefits for children…It especially provides a shared interest between fathers and sons, and boys and men generally…Sport is often a great way of building character, learning about life and developing masculinity.
I have included in the report a copy of Appendix 2 from ‘Raising Boys’ about how to tell if a school is a good one for boys, a list devised by Deborah Hartman and Richard Fletcher for the ‘Boys to Fine Men Program’, University of Newcastle, NSW Australia.
Achievement is surely linked to management of students and classrooms. Biddulph emphasizes the importance of calm, orderly environments for boys; and clear boundary setting and modelling of behaviour when coping with anger and frustration. Sensitive management is a key topic for raising motivation and achievement.
Another eminent clinical psychologist at the University of Washington, Carolyn Webster-Stratton, describes and promotes strategies for emotional literacy and academic success. Summarised very briefly, the most relevant of these for the teacher include:
• Using descriptive commenting about a child’s activity
• Using coaching approaches for problem generation, appraising and choosing possible solutions
• Giving positive attention and specific, unambiguous praise
• Targeting specific behaviours to praise
• Encouraging peer praise by children
• Rewarding improving, not perfect behaviour
• Giving tangible rewards
• Keeping reward and sanction systems separate
• Limit setting in polite, simple, realistic ways, and expressed positively
• Giving time to comply, warnings and reminders
• When…then/if…then commands
• Giving options
• Follow through with praise or consequences
• Ignoring poor behaviour when appropriate, and giving back attention rapidly if these cease
• Giving time out to calm down and reflect
• Allowing natural and logical consequences of poor behaviour or attitudes to work
• Helping children to regulate their emotions by recognizing them, talking about them, teaching positive self-talk and intervening in their own build up of tension.
Many of these techniques are already very familiar to many teachers and indeed, an integral part of our schools classroom management policy. Others coincide very strongly with research being undertaken at the moment in our school about behaviour and behaviour management strategies. Continuing to refine policies, raise staff awareness of ‘emotionally literate’ techniques and build teachers’ confidence in developing both rapport and boundaries with students is of huge benefit, in achieving the kind of environment for study described by Biddulph.
Webster-Stratton’s ideas align closely with the concept of ‘emotional intelligence’, a phrase made popular by psychologist and author Daniel Goleman who defines it as knowing one’s feelings and using them to make good decisions in life; being able to manage moods and control impulses; and being motivated and effectively overcoming set backs in working towards goals.
Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences includes two personal intelligences-interpersonal and intrapersonal. The first relates to the ability to interact successfully with others, the second focuses on the ability to reflect on self.
Supporting students, and indeed any member of the school community, in developing emotional competencies such as self-awareness, empathy, impulse control, listening, decision making and anger management is of potentially huge benefit in raising achievement which is fostered partly by all of our personal perceptions of successful working relationships between staff and students.
3. Some Strategies for Raising Boys’Achievement through Teaching and
Learning
What can we do about it?
These are all ideas generated by ideas and findings in the report. The list is not
exhaustive.
i. Looking at the bigger picture: whole school policy issues
o Focus on underachievement rather than gender Discuss as a school or subject team how you identify underachieving pupils, including girls
o Ask subject teams or primary subject co-ordinators to identify places in schemes of work which create opportunities to explore gender stereotypes.
o Promote awareness of gender influenced responses by staff and students
o Use the ideas in this report to generate debate and ideas about what action is most relevant and appropriate to your school
o Find out where you are: analyse your data, so you know what the added data shows you. (You may have a smaller than average gap, but you may add value to one group more than another); which pupils failed to reach their potential.(Look at their actual test papers and samples of their work); the gender choices at option times, and how teachers and pupils treat those who may opt for non-traditional subjects; where exclusions peak and who is excluded for what
o As with staff being aware of SEN information at the beginning of the academic year, information to be circulated about any student born in the last quarter, June-August, as ‘young in year’. Progress/support/potential special needs to be assessed with this clearly in mind, avoiding ‘misdiagnosis’ of special needs, and sensitive, informed discussion with parents and other agencies about progress in context of ‘real age’
o At the outset of Year 7, establish good attitudes in students to talk and activity as work. Dispel notions of writing alone being work. Reinforce over time
o At outset of Year 7, establish notion of content, language and structure being paramount to good writing (many students and parents focus on ‘secretarial’ skills-spelling, handwriting.)
o Reading promotion involving all the men on the staff including non-teaching staff, run by SLT. Consider using the National Reading Campaign which promotes reading for pleasure. Reading Champions is a nationwide scheme that aims to find and celebrate positive male role models for reading.
o Further case study research comparing a significant sample of boys in Year 8 with markedly improved and markedly deteriorated reading scores between 10+ and 12+, in order to investigate factors influencing progress. Question? Is this a good indicator for intervention at KS3?
o Canopied outside teaching spaces and planted areas which can be booked by faculties, with schemes of work and resources designed specifically for active, independent learning in the open.
ii. Classroom management and pastoral care
o Classroom observations to gather information on: the pace and challenge in lessons; the kinds of questions asked and who answers; whether colleagues are right in their perceptions of off- task activity and general behaviour; the number of teacher interactions with boys/girls and the nature of those interactions; whether teachers have high expectations of all their pupils; the approximate ratio of praise to criticism and what pupils are praised
o Covered school seating plans: colour coded three ways for less able or SEN, able and underperforming, and able and performing/G&T, reviewed half-termly when new plans written- no coding for gender
o Continue to promote the four part lesson and other strategies to give purpose and context to learning
o Continue to promote good practice for collaborative learning by students
o Incorporate work about/discussion of gender differences and roles amongst the students-in forms, subject areas, PSHE, year groups, school council
o Review and intervention at transition, within first half-term to term of Year 7. Survey students. Work repeated? Work appropriate and challenging? File examples in student folders of best work at Year 6, for comparison
o Be watchful for classroom strategies which alienate boys or reprimand them more: be alert to girls who talk behind your back or groom behind their desk
o Assemblies, school literature to continue to reflect our interest in knowing about and recognising achievement which recognises different kinds of intelligence and skill sets, in addition to the academic, technical, creative and sporting achievements in school. Give profile to qualities, interests and achievements which will contribute to future success: interpersonal skills, self-motivation and skills with hobbies, emotional intelligence, dedication to tasks and outside interests etc. Incorporate into current reward schemes.
o Personalise incentives and rewards for reluctant/challenged learners
o At Key Stage 3, Year 7 male carer’s schemes (grandfathers, fathers, adult brothers, other male sponsors) : structured programmes to involve role models in boys’ work and reading in Year 7, and to share own use of literacy skills for information, information technology, work and pleasure (issues of all having support, support they are happy to work with etc.); rewards scheme; emphasise praise and encouragement
o Contextualise potential career plans/life goals at the start of courses in Year 10 to give purpose to study.
o Outside male role models teaching one-off mini-lessons with practical link to academic subject: for example, a builder for Maths; a football coach for Maths; a motor mechanic for Science; a journalist for English;
o Homework and GCSE coursework quality and deadlines: immediate and constructive intervention and resolution, building level/focus of personal attention, sense of monitoring and consequences, opportunity for achievement and recognition (admin/support staff roles?)
iii. Lesson planning; and teaching and learning materials and approaches
o Plan for the fact that many (but not all) boys: have different work patterns from girls; think differently about risk and reward; respond to different incentives and have certain areas of neural disadvantage
o Lesson time and activities at the beginning of the academic year/course for building trust and rapport between teacher and student, student and peers; and for emphasising peer collaboration and peer support. Recognise students’ own views and feelings about academic work in your subject; ‘unpack’ past problems, referring for help if necessary
o Return to initial self-assessment at set points in the year (Week 8 of each term?) and assess whether students are more positive
o Examine the balance of talk, activity and writing in each lesson and unit of work, to ensure that lessons are participatory Channel boys’ behaviour and skills into activities which value their male qualities and reward them
o Take more risks in allowing independent learning opportunities and asking girls and boys to present mini lessons to the class
o Ensure brisk pace in lessons which include multi-choice questions and quizzes, mind-mapping, visual and kinaesthetic activities. Use active learning, visual props and activities, drama, ICT to create ‘hooks in the mind’ to hang the learning on
o Use open textured preparation for writing-discussion, collaboration, exploration, drama, rehearsal of sentences and passages, which isn’t immediately goal-centred , but combine with close textured direction-clear, functional, precise and goal-centred
o Following the European model, cut back on writing for recording, and any other unnecessary writing. Make long pieces of writing essential and exciting, planned, structured, modelled, self-assessed and valued. Then, maximise practice of independent, extended writing
o For non-fiction writing across subjects, use real and varied models, and analyse them carefully before students attempt their own writing. Non-fiction writing can be extremely varied-students need to experience this and not be misled into thinking that there is one way to write a report or an advertisement, for example
o Develop honest appraisal and self-review routines as part of AFL. Make sure writing is checked in a disciplined way and have equally high expectations of boys and girls
o Listen to pupils: research repeatedly shows how accurate children’s judgements can be about what would help them
o Promote involvement in speaking and listening: No hands-up rule; select names from a hat; use raffle ticket numbers; ask student to choose next person to speak after him/her (no repeats allowed); spokesperson for group feedback
o Teach GCSE Writing skills in abstract: kinaesthetic sessions delivered by different departments such as Literary essay-English; Discursive essay-History etc.
Example for Literary essay-
Planning mind maps
Correct tense; conventions of style-no abbreviations slang etc.
Opening introduction exploiting terms of title
Point Evidence Explain
Using topic sentences to open paragraphs
Using general opening sentences to introduce several ideas-
therefore contolling subsequent sentences
Embedded quotation
…and so on…
o In English, exploit connections between students’ interests and writing-for example, examine spelling deviation and style in text messaging, write narrative based on a computer game
o Involve students in planning and resourcing challenging lessons.
iv. Extra-curricular Opportunities
o Survey students about a choice of extra-curricular activity and attempt to meet demand
o Continue strong sporting activity in the school
o Create opportunities for boys to lead parts of the extra curricular programme
o Find lots of work and roles outside of lessons giving responsibility
Will these strategies work?
We can’t be sure. Firstly, there is a confusing welter of different advice. Secondly, schools which have been successful in closing the gender gap may still be working with the research community to pin down how this was done:
The schools we initially worked with did not always know…why their gender gap had closed. Certainly all schools had put into effect certain measures to raise improvement, but these were not necessarily gender specific, nor indeed boy specific. Thus, although there was often an intuitive grasp of why the gap was narrowing, there was little analysis of the process of impact which would enable the strategy to be transferred, with confidence, to other schools.
(Younger, Warrington et al: Raising Boys’ Achievement, 2005)
4. Bibliography
• Powney, J. (1996): Trends in Gender and Attainment in Scotland
• Equal Opportunities Commission (1998) Gender and Differential Achievement in Education: A Research Review
• Gurian and Stevens: How Boys Learn, Educational Horizons, 84:2 (2006) 87-93
• Isaacs, S.: How Children Learn, Practical Pre-school
• Biddulph, S.: Raising Boys, Thorsons, 2003
• Webster-Stratton, C.: The Incredible Years, 2006
• All other research articles and sources as recorded in main body of report
5. Outline of CPD
Need: song; donated photos and name cards; post-its ; Powerpoint; paper and pens; staff attending bring one class list for a group of their choice.
❖ Play Dinah Washington-Mad About the Boy
❖ Arrival Activity-picture quiz: match baby photo with male member of staff
❖ Develop: .Why are you here? Investigate perceived problems with boys and remind of boys’ personalities and potential in infancy-photos
❖ Post-it: one issue about gender, and boys’ achievement you would like to have addressed by the end of the session
❖ Powerpoint presentation-show boy/girl reign photographs and then key findings
❖ In faculty, or maths/ science, arts/ technology groups, discuss issues and set six most important and manageable new things for all to put in place, in regard to tackling underachievement
❖ Teacher review of profile of students’ class personality to raise awareness of gap between perception and reality and/or teacher/boy interaction and teacher/girl interaction consider responses
❖ All to choose one other person’s post-it and find pair who has yours: collaborative coaching or problem-solving for each others issue
❖ Plenary
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- how to develop a business plan
- how to develop a mission statement
- how to develop a mission statement worksheet
- how to develop research question
- how to develop a mission statement work
- steps to develop a curriculum
- how to develop customer relationships
- how to develop a research question
- how to develop writing skills
- high school research project topics
- high school research project guidelines
- high school research project pdf