EDUCATION FOR THE GOOD SOCIETY - Support

impact on achievement, in a variety of ways. It isdominant constructions of femininity that renderhigh achievement potentially problematic forgirls (as such constructions render ‘braininess’and competitiveness problematic), but also araft of research has suggested that high statusconstructions of ‘laddish’ masculinity in schoolsinterpolate boys in behaviours detrimentalto their achievement. 12 Certainly being loud,disruptive and rebellious is an expression of ahigh-status form of masculinity in school. Whatis evident is that such behaviour interferes withthe learning of both the boys concerned, and thatof their fellow classmates.It is not just the behaviour of pupils thatperpetuates gender distinction and inequality. Ihave already noted the ways in which the school’sorganisational and disciplinary systems heightengender distinction, and traditional assumptionsreflected within the curriculum and educationalmaterials do the same. But also, research hasshown how the perceptions and expectationsof teachers of their pupils, and their day-to-dayinteraction, often remain highly stereotypical. 13Indeed, the focus on ‘the needs of boys’ in recentyears has magnified such gendered assumptionsand generated a rejuvenation of genderedclassroom practices. It has driven application of‘boy friendly’ strategies that have often resultedin a range of inequalities. For example, it wasfound in one Australian secondary school thatgirls were being allocated to a set below theirlevel so that they could be replaced in highersets by lower-achieving boys – this was seento achieve ‘gender equitable’ streams, and toaddress classroom management problems in lowsets. This practice was branded by Charlton etal as ‘sacrifical girls’. 14 In England, practices thatdisappeared in the 1980s, such as lining boys andgirls up in separate lines, have made a comeback.Concepts of ‘gendered learning styles’ are rifeand applied to teaching practice in spite of alack of evidence, and in mixed-sex classes suchstrategies – which usually reduce to the crudestof gender stereotypes – are inevitably applied tomeet the perceived needs of boys. 15 As GemmaMoss, Chris Skelton and I illustrated in ‘Genderand education – mythbusters’, published by theDepartment for Children, Schools and Families,many of these ‘boy friendly’ strategies are actuallydetrimental to boys’ learning, and encouragethe stereotypical productions of gender thatcontribute to underachievement. 16ImplicationsThe practices outlined here amount to a hiddencurriculum that teaches girls (and boys) ‘theirplace’ in the classroom and the world outside. Theoverwhelming message to girls remains that theyare of less value than boys. Boys’ domination ofattention, space and verbal interaction is quicklyseen as unremarkable – and simply extends thenorm in other aspects of societal interaction.Meanwhile, boys experience a competitivemasculinity hierarchy in which those who fall atthe bottom, and/or fail to conform, risk routineridicule and punishment. Yet such distinctionsand inequalities are largely unchallenged – indeedare often routinely supported and exacerbated– by the schooling system. These inequalities,and the gender-distinct post-16 educationaland occupational routes they promote, resultin inequalities in work and family life beyondschooling.Existing assumptions and resulting strategiesto support boys’ achievement that are basedon stereotypical assumptions about genderdifference risk exacerbating exisiting inequalities,in patterns of achievement and educationalexperience. The DCSF’s recent research for its‘Gender Agenda’ supported my conclusion withChris Skelton: ‘It is in schools where genderconstructions are less accentuated that boys tendto do better – and strategies that work to reduceconstructions of gender difference that are mosteffective in facilitating boys’ achievement.’ 17 Butthere is little evidence yet of changing attitudesin schools. A significant injection of resourceswould be needed to address the highly challengingand embedded area of gendered behaviours andexpectations in schools. A radical effort will berequired if we are serious about addressing theseissues; a necessary step in educating for the GoodSociety.12 For a review of the literature,see Becky Francis and ChristineSkelton, Reassessing Gender andAchievement, Routledge, 2005.13 Ibid.14 Emma Charlton, Martin Mills,Wayne Martino and Lori Beckett,‘Sacrificial girls: a case study ofthe impact of streaming andsetting on gender reform’, BritishEducational Research Journal, 33(4),2007, p.459.15 Christine Skelton and BarbaraRead, ‘Male and female teachers’evaluative responses to genderand the learning environments ofprimary age pupils’, InternationalStudies in Sociology of Education,16(2), 2006, p.105.16 G. Moss, B. Francis and C.Skelton, ‘Gender and education– mythbusters: addressinggender and achievement:myths and realities’, Dept forChildren, Schools and Families,2009, https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DCSF-00599-2009.17 Christine Skelton, BeckyFrancis and Yordanka Valkanova,Breaking Down the Stereotypes:Gender and Achievement in Schools,Equal Opportunities Commission,2007.Education for the good society | 25