T<strong>in</strong>kl<strong>in</strong> et al, 2001; T<strong>in</strong>kl<strong>in</strong>, 2003; Stark and Gray, 1999). A similar picture can beobserved <strong>in</strong> England and Wales (Younger et al, 2005) and <strong>in</strong>ternationally (Francis, 1999;Jackson, 2002).Recent atta<strong>in</strong>ment statistics (SEED, 2003a) <strong>in</strong>dicate that, for all subjects and stages, thepercentages <strong>of</strong> pupils atta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the expected target levels was greater for females than formales, the difference be<strong>in</strong>g most noticeable <strong>in</strong> the later primary and early secondarystages. In particular, it was greater for read<strong>in</strong>g and writ<strong>in</strong>g than for mathematics.Commenta<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>in</strong> Scotland, as elsewhere, have po<strong>in</strong>ted out that comparisons across broadareas <strong>of</strong> the curriculum us<strong>in</strong>g average performance measures <strong>of</strong>ten mask the widevariation <strong>in</strong> atta<strong>in</strong>ment with<strong>in</strong> each group; simple, generalised conclusions about boys’and girls’ atta<strong>in</strong>ment should not be drawn from the data (T<strong>in</strong>kl<strong>in</strong> et al, 2001).Other fac<strong>to</strong>rs identified as <strong>in</strong>fluenc<strong>in</strong>g atta<strong>in</strong>ment <strong>in</strong>clude ethnicity (Arnot et al, 1998)and social class (Plummer, 2000). Both ethnicity and social class are fac<strong>to</strong>rs which,comb<strong>in</strong>ed with, and <strong>in</strong>teract<strong>in</strong>g with gender, are seen as hav<strong>in</strong>g a direct bear<strong>in</strong>g onachievement. T<strong>in</strong>kl<strong>in</strong> (2003) also argues that any study <strong>of</strong> atta<strong>in</strong>ment must take account<strong>of</strong> these, and the ways <strong>in</strong> which they <strong>in</strong>teract with gender.Researchers have also l<strong>in</strong>ked academic achievement with patterns <strong>of</strong> behaviour (Murphyand Ellwood, 1999; Davies and Brember, 1995), not<strong>in</strong>g that, even <strong>in</strong> the early stages,there are signs <strong>of</strong> boys be<strong>in</strong>g more vulnerable <strong>to</strong> becom<strong>in</strong>g disaffected. In addition, boystended <strong>to</strong> be less careful about rules and more <strong>in</strong>different <strong>to</strong> be<strong>in</strong>g reprimanded. On acautionary note, Younger et al (2005) po<strong>in</strong>t out that there are many boys who cont<strong>in</strong>ue <strong>to</strong>do well <strong>in</strong> school; only a m<strong>in</strong>ority become disaffected. Similarly cautious, Biggart(2000) found only limited evidence <strong>to</strong> support the view that low atta<strong>in</strong>ment amongst<strong>Scottish</strong> school leavers was attributable <strong>to</strong> negative attitudes <strong>to</strong> education or thatdisaffection was a pr<strong>in</strong>cipal cause <strong>of</strong> low atta<strong>in</strong>ment.Patterns <strong>of</strong> behaviour <strong>in</strong> <strong>Scottish</strong> schools are highly gendered. The SEED annualstatistics on school exclusions show that secondary-aged boys are four times more likelythan girls <strong>to</strong> be excluded from school, with boys <strong>in</strong> primary school ten times more likely<strong>to</strong> be excluded (e.g. SEED, 2000: see also annual statistics athttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bullet<strong>in</strong>s/00402-00.asp). Boys are also more likely <strong>to</strong>be referred <strong>to</strong> Behavioural Support Services (Head et al, 2002).The figures <strong>in</strong>dicate that, while gender is a fac<strong>to</strong>r, other <strong>in</strong>dica<strong>to</strong>rs can be moresignificant. Associated fac<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>in</strong>clude the possession <strong>of</strong> a Record <strong>of</strong> Needs and/orLooked After status and various <strong>in</strong>dices <strong>of</strong> poverty such as the receipt <strong>of</strong> free schoolmeals. For example, Looked After Children are thirty times more likely <strong>to</strong> be excludedthan children liv<strong>in</strong>g with their immediate family (seehttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/education/lacr-03.asp).______________________________________________________________________________________<strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Strategies</strong> <strong>to</strong> 4 University <strong>of</strong> Strathclyde<strong>Address</strong> <strong>Gender</strong> <strong>Inequalities</strong>and University <strong>of</strong> Glasgow
2.3 Causes <strong>of</strong> gender <strong>in</strong>equalityA range <strong>of</strong> fac<strong>to</strong>rs have been identified as contribut<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> gender <strong>in</strong>equality, both <strong>in</strong> andout <strong>of</strong> school.i. In-school fac<strong>to</strong>rsSome <strong>of</strong> the explanations <strong>of</strong>fered refer <strong>to</strong> <strong>in</strong>-school fac<strong>to</strong>rs such as the management andethos <strong>of</strong> the school, the content and organisation <strong>of</strong> the curriculum, assessment practices,and classroom pedagogies. Sukhnandan et al (2000), <strong>in</strong> review<strong>in</strong>g the literature, identifytwo broad explanations for girls’ and boys’ differential performance <strong>in</strong> school. Firstly,girls and boys have different learn<strong>in</strong>g styles which, <strong>in</strong> turn, need different styles <strong>of</strong>teach<strong>in</strong>g; and, secondly, girls and boys seem <strong>to</strong> relate differently <strong>to</strong> school<strong>in</strong>g andlearn<strong>in</strong>g, with girls f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g it easier <strong>to</strong> succeed.In terms <strong>of</strong> attitudes <strong>to</strong> school and learn<strong>in</strong>g, Sukhnandan et al (2000) describe girls asbe<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong> general, better disposed <strong>to</strong> the demands <strong>of</strong> classroom activity than boys. Theyplace a high value on the presentation <strong>of</strong> their work; they spend more time try<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong>improve what they produce (MacDonald et al, 1999); they care more about the op<strong>in</strong>ions<strong>of</strong> their teachers (Davies and Brember, 1995; Bray et al, 1997); they derive moreenjoyment from school life (Arnot et al, 1998).The peer group is a strong <strong>in</strong>fluence on boys’ attitudes <strong>to</strong> school and <strong>to</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g (Barber,1994). Where the culture <strong>of</strong> the peer group is <strong>to</strong> devalue schoolwork, it is difficult for<strong>in</strong>dividual boys <strong>to</strong> seek and accept the public endorsement <strong>of</strong> the school. Girls, on theother hand, do not experience a conflict <strong>of</strong> loyalties between friends and school <strong>to</strong> thesame degree (Barber, 1994; Macrae et al, 2000).In contrast, there is a considerable body <strong>of</strong> literature which <strong>in</strong>dicates that girls cont<strong>in</strong>ue <strong>to</strong>be disadvantaged <strong>in</strong> school contexts. Echo<strong>in</strong>g the EIS literature <strong>of</strong> 1989, Paechter (1998)argues that boys dom<strong>in</strong>ate time and space <strong>in</strong> classrooms, manag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> attract <strong>to</strong>themselves much more teacher time and much greater ‘hands-on’ access <strong>to</strong> resourcessuch as computers. Boys also dom<strong>in</strong>ate outdoors recreational space through activitiessuch as football, tak<strong>in</strong>g up a lot <strong>of</strong> space and displac<strong>in</strong>g other activities (Shill<strong>in</strong>g, 1991,cited <strong>in</strong> Paechter, 1998). In addition, the effects <strong>of</strong> stereotyp<strong>in</strong>g subjects has been seen asimpact<strong>in</strong>g negatively on girls’ choices by, for example, act<strong>in</strong>g aga<strong>in</strong>st their participation<strong>in</strong> those subjects perceived <strong>to</strong> be more abstract <strong>in</strong> the school context but valued byuniversity admissions tu<strong>to</strong>rs (Riddell, 1992).There is also some evidence that explanations have become gendered (Paechter, 1998;Cohen, 1998). Such explanations attribute girls’ fail<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>to</strong> fac<strong>to</strong>rs with<strong>in</strong> girlsthemselves, whereas boys’ fail<strong>in</strong>gs have been blamed on external circumstances.Conversely, girls’ successes are seen as be<strong>in</strong>g due <strong>to</strong> external fac<strong>to</strong>rs (e.g. the success <strong>of</strong>equal opportunities policies) whereas boys’ achievements are credited <strong>to</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternalattributes (e.g. <strong>in</strong>nate <strong>in</strong>telligence).ii. The development <strong>of</strong> gendered identitiesThe literature <strong>in</strong> this area (for example, Connell, 1982; Arnot, 1991) tends <strong>to</strong> reject thenotion that there are biological or pathological differences and also, <strong>in</strong> general, is critical<strong>of</strong> social learn<strong>in</strong>g theory which postulates that gender identities are fixed by earlyprocesses <strong>of</strong> socialisation. Although there is scepticism <strong>in</strong> the literature, these theorieshave had considerable impact on the development <strong>of</strong> strategies for boys and girls. MacAn Ghaill (1994) criticises earlier strategies <strong>in</strong>tended <strong>to</strong> address perceived discrim<strong>in</strong>ationaga<strong>in</strong>st girls, e.g. chang<strong>in</strong>g school texts and establish<strong>in</strong>g gender-fair teach<strong>in</strong>g styles,which he considers well-<strong>in</strong>tentioned, if naïve. He cites Arnot (1991), who argues thatsuch strategies were flawed by a simplistic portrayal <strong>of</strong> the issues and a perception <strong>of</strong>girls as victims. Similarly, Mart<strong>in</strong>o and Berrill (2003) critique New Right prescriptionsfor change <strong>to</strong> address the ‘problems’ <strong>of</strong> mascul<strong>in</strong>ity, particularly <strong>in</strong> schools, on the______________________________________________________________________________________<strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Strategies</strong> <strong>to</strong> 5 University <strong>of</strong> Strathclyde<strong>Address</strong> <strong>Gender</strong> <strong>Inequalities</strong>and University <strong>of</strong> Glasgow
- Page 3 and 4: CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSEXECUTIVE S
- Page 5 and 6: EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIntroductionThe Re
- Page 7 and 8: Staff and management in most school
- Page 9 and 10: 6. Management and whole school pers
- Page 11 and 12: CHAPTER ONE THE STUDYRecent researc
- Page 13: CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATUR
- Page 17 and 18: Archer and Yamashita (2003) argue t
- Page 19 and 20: ii. Assessment practicesNational mo
- Page 21 and 22: Further efforts to ensure ‘effect
- Page 23 and 24: Skelton (2001) argues that the basi
- Page 25 and 26: were still highly gendered. Further
- Page 27 and 28: CHAPTER THREE SURVEY OF LOCAL AUTHO
- Page 29 and 30: curriculum structures and lifelong
- Page 31 and 32: ‘Getting the best out of Boys’
- Page 33 and 34: 4.2 Early literacyLiteracy, or, mor
- Page 35 and 36: that it was concerned, at least in
- Page 37 and 38: 4.3 Self-concept and esteemA number
- Page 39 and 40: to the boys, animal print designs a
- Page 41 and 42: parents and what they wanted. Overa
- Page 43 and 44: was a thrust in the policy towards
- Page 45 and 46: School 1In the first school, non-de
- Page 47 and 48: For pupils, there were some common
- Page 49 and 50: Staff interviewed thought that a pa
- Page 51 and 52: The initiative had not been evaluat
- Page 53 and 54: indicated that he believed there wa
- Page 55 and 56: CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSIONThe review o
- Page 57 and 58: Pupils were particularly aware of g
- Page 59 and 60: differences in the ways that boys a
- Page 61 and 62: Burn, E (2001) Do boys need male pr
- Page 63 and 64: Lloyd, G (ed.) (2005) Problem Girls
- Page 65 and 66:
Rowe, K, Nix, PJ and Tepper, G (199
- Page 67 and 68:
APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR LOCAL
- Page 69 and 70:
6. Would you expect any written pol
- Page 71 and 72:
C. Strategies to address gender ine
- Page 73 and 74:
Local authority161718Strategy/Area
- Page 75 and 76:
Focus group schedule: pupilsThe the
- Page 77 and 78:
4. ImpactHas the project made any d
- Page 79 and 80:
Policy origin of the initiativeLoca
- Page 81 and 82:
Relationship with other strategiesE
- Page 83 and 84:
Section 4Focus Group - ParentsGener