Review of Strategies to Address Gender Inequalities in Scottish ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• pupil focus groups – one girl-only group and one boy-only group of between8-10 pupils where the practice of SGCs was ongoing (2 schools); and• classroom observation of a boys’ class and a girls’ class in each schoolwhere the practice of SGCs was ongoing (2 schools).i. Background of schools involvedOf the 3 schools involved, 2 were non-denominational. One of these had a mixedcatchment area, with a stable community, while the other was situated in an area withsignificant economic and social issues. In the latter, a range of strategies had been usedsuccessfully over recent years to raise attainment and the profile of the school in the localcommunity. The third school was denominational, with a wide catchment areaencompassing urban and rural communities.ii. Initial impetus and fundingThe strategy had been implemented as a result of concerns regarding achievement innational certification at the upper secondary stages, with the aim of raising attainmentgenerally rather than as a strategy focusing specifically on the issue of gender equality.There were no direct funding implications.iii. The implementation of the strategyThe use of SGCs is a strategy that has been used on a limited scale only and for arelatively short period of time. Furthermore, within each case study school there hadbeen a lack of consistency in practice over a number of years. Changes in the teachingprogramme and in staffing, limited availability of consistent supply cover, differences inpupil cohorts year by year, as well as differences in teaching and behaviour managementstrategies (some of which were more effective than others), were all cited as influencingfactors. Although in one school it was felt that there had been an impact on pupils incredit/general groups, evidence from other schools did not support this.iv. The impactThe findings for each school are presented separately, using the same headings as foreach case study, and an overview is provided.______________________________________________________________________________________Review of Strategies to 34 University of StrathclydeAddress Gender Inequalitiesand University of Glasgow
School 1In the first school, non-denominational in a disadvantaged area, the key findings fromthe school visits were:Impetus: The impetus for this initiative came from a desire to raise attainment. The areastargeted for this were English and Mathematics, where Principal Teachers were expectedto use setting.Implementation: SGCs were implemented in S3 and S4, and the strategy aimed to targetpupils in the middle range of attainment. In Mathematics, the strategy is also intended totackle boys’ behaviour and to allow girls a chance to participate: in this subject the wholeyear group had previously been dealt with but staffing constraints had seen the strategylimited to those in the middle range of attainment. There has been no specific matching ofteacher and pupil gender, nor has there been expanded staff development in relation togender issues, although discussion at departmental level and some staff development hasbeen planned to look at teaching of boys.Impact: The teachers held mixed views about the benefits of SGCs – some teachersfound the boys’ classes difficult to manage, though others expressed more positive views.One female teacher talked about being a role model for the girls in the SGC. The pupilsalso had mixed views. Some boys were slightly more positive about SGCs, especiallywith a male teacher, while some pupils preferred mixed gender classes. Both boys andgirls expressed the view that they were conscious of what boys/girls might be beingsaying about them. More significant in the pupils’ view was the relationship with theteacher.School 2The second school was also non-denominational, with a mixed, though stable, socialbackground.Impetus: The impetus for the initiative came from the Principal Teacher of English.Implementation: The strategy involved SGCs across the whole year group in English:these were initially in S3 and S4, but were extended to include S2. There was no specificmatching of teacher and pupil gender, although there was some staff development inrelation to boys and learning.Impact: The practice of having SGCs has now been discontinued by the revised settingarrangements introduced by new management. Staff held positive views about thebenefits of single gender teaching for both boys and girls in terms of behaviour andattainment – particularly for pupils who were borderline credit/general.School 3The key findings from the third school, a denominational school drawing pupils fromboth urban and rural communities, were as follows.Impetus: The initiative was coordinated by the Depute Head Teacher and a detailedevaluation had been conducted by a school development group. The main focus wasagain on the raising of attainment.Implementation: Single gender classes were used in S3 and S4, once again in Englishand Mathematics, currently targeting pupils in the middle range of attainment. Reductionin the size of classes which this group attended and the timetabling of a coherent PEprogramme were associated issues. There was no specific matching of teacher and pupilgender, nor had there been any expanded staff development in relation to gender issues.Impact: In this school, the teachers reported that the SGCs were more about behaviour –both boys’ and girls’. For girls it involved tackling self-esteem and underachievement,building a ‘can do’ feeling and providing opportunities for them to participate fully in the______________________________________________________________________________________Review of Strategies to 35 University of StrathclydeAddress Gender Inequalitiesand University of 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 and 14: CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATUR
Page 15 and 16: 2.3 Causes of gender inequalityA ra
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: was a thrust in the policy towards
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

Review of Strategies to Address Gender Inequalities in Scottish ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?