I recall some Irish research which found that boys did better in co-ed schools, girls in single-sex schools - hard to resolve!

I think it's horses for courses, the main thing is to suit the school to the child rather than be dogmatic. Financially, my kids could go to private schools only if they got scholarships. All the research and advice we had re our eldest (male) suggested Brisbane Grammar School as best; he got a full scholarship, enjoyed it for 3.5 years but fell foul of the parochial side of the institution thereafter. He now has a first-class science degree and is flying in graduate medicine. On the same basis, my elder daughter went to Somerville House, it was great for her, some wonderful teachers, she's now got an excellent job as an engineer.

Those two were 23 months apart, and the house was filled with their friends - no problems re social interaction. However, there was a gap of almost four years to our third daughter, and socialisation became an issue. She was also offered a scholarship to Somerville, but went to Brisbane State High (our second choice for the others) - partly because of the co-ed aspects, partly because we thought it would suit her personality better. More left ideology/political correctness in the school, but she's also a high-flyer, heading for a double-first in Science/Arts, studying at UBC Vancouver next year.

We were lucky to have alternatives. but the main thing is to find out enough about potential schools to ensure that they are right for your child, whether single-sex or co-ed.

It would be absolutely imperative that parents shop around and ask many questions before they enroll their son in any school.

The following are some recent results from a high school of 1500 students.

Of the students in grade 8 who achieved high marks in all their subjects 41 were girls and 10 were boys.

Of the students in grade 9 who achieved high marks in all their subjects 25 were girls and 5 were boys.

Of the students in grade 10 who achieved high marks in all subjects, 15 were girls and 2 were boys.

Such results are now typical of most schools throughout the country, but because lower marks are going to boys it is not regarded as being an important issue.

The education system is now highly feminist, and many teachers have been feminist trained. Those teachers have been trained to have minimal regard for the male gender, or they have been trained to only think negatively of the male gender. If a boy is having problems, then a feminist trained teacher will attribute this to the boy being male. If a girl is having problems, then a feminist trained teacher will regard the problems as being real problems, and much more attention is likely to be paid to those problem.

The results are low marks by boys in primary school and high schools, and falling male enrolment numbers in Universities, but there are also University feminists who want no males at all in Universities in the future

HRS..........
"The education system is now highly feminist, and many teachers have been feminist trained. Those teachers have been trained to have minimal regard for the male gender, or they have been trained to only think negatively of the male gender. If a boy is having problems, then a feminist trained teacher will attribute this to the boy being male. If a girl is having problems, then a feminist trained teacher will regard the problems as being real problems, and much more attention is likely to be paid to those problem."

And your proof/data for this generalisation is where?

PeterJH,

If I might be so bold as to help out with your enquiry of HRS, you might try this site for a sample -

Mad Shiela Musings
http://madsheilamusings.blogspot.com/

This is the personal blog of one fresh newby young teacher, who was recently attached to some school (co-ed) in Geraldton, this next page announced her temp or fulltime appointment, but has recently been cleaned to "protect her identity" as you will see -

http://madsheilamusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/see-ya-deleted-to-protect-my-identity.html

I'm afraid you'll just have to trust me that that's what it said - or you could write her and ask her yourself.

So, go figure, what chance of an education being a boy in her class?

Peter,

I feel you’re trying to be balanced towards boys but can’t seem to break free from a feminist prism that attempts to be negative about male learning. For example:

PW,
Boys watch how the arguments go, then wade in with an attempt to sum up. They would learn more if girls were not there doing all the useful work which got the discussion going.

If it were boys talking first you would say they were dominating the conversation and excluding girls. At any rate, the sentence could easily have been written, ‘boys try to think before they speak; they listen to the available information and then attempt to synthesise it”.

PW,
Boys can offer unusual ideas which may seem off the wall to middle-class, middle aged teachers

Why not write boys have a vivid imagination? If half the population have a certain way of thinking then it's not unusual (ie half the population thinks like that).

PW,
Boys find such [descriptive] tasks tiresome.

I hate to tell you this but it is your problem not the boys. You need to find tasks that inspire and engage them, not treat them like some sort of deficient girls. Try a description of something they like.

PW,
Don’t ever forget that boys enjoy doing tasks that strengthen their sense of strong masculinity.

The assumption here, again, seems to be that there is something is wrong with masculinity. Why wouldn’t you strengthen their masculinity? Would you prefer to destroy their self-confidence instead?

PW,
Boys would more commonly spend time rushing around, playing competitive sport, or making a great noise.

Mmm. They’re acting like children aren’t they!! Instead of being implicitly negative about the way that 50% of the population acts, how about you rephrase the sentence to, ‘Boys love playing games, have a great deal of energy, and are full of life. This is how boys socialise…, they learn these skills…. they stay fit….” , and so on. When so many children are overweight or obese why be negative about activity.

Cont…

PW,
Boys would be more likely to rush ahead

First you say boys in your tutorials wait and ‘attempt’ to sum up and now you’re saying they ‘rush ahead’. Illogical, but hey: Congratulations! You’re now a fully qualified feminist.

PW,
In a 6th grade class, I was reading The Princess Bride

By 6th grade most boys have had seven female teachers. They’re still very close to their mother but are starting to think about the world of men. They don’t want to grow up to be a Princess Bride. Thank God for that. Why don’t you try reading them a book they like? James Maloney and Paul Jennings might be a good place to start.

PW,
Girls are usually happy to discuss - a word that fills most boys with loathing:

Wrong again. Boys are very happy to discuss things they are interested in. Discussing being a princess bride will not interest them. You need to change, not the boys.

The sad thing is that you’re an ‘expert’ on boys’ education, yet you can’t see past a feminist perspective; a premiss that boys are some type of deficient girl. What hope do boys have? At least at a boys’ only school, even if they do miss out on some socialisation, they won’t be treated as somehow ‘wrong’.

Has the author considered that the underachievement and disengagement of boys in education could be linked more with education in State Schools?

What if underachievement and so-called 'boys problems' are linked with 'anti-boy' policies in State schools? It would be exacerbated by the Pygmalion Effect, working in reverse - boys are expected to be 'problems' and that becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. That boys are violent troublemakers is taught as part of the curriculum.

Generally speaking, in the State system boys are sledged, patronised or (more likely) forgotten. How would a boy feel after being treated as a defective girl or a potentially disruptive influence for the whole of his schooling?

If anyone doubts that there are problems in State education, have a look at the increasing popularity of transferring boys from State to private schools and it is happening at earlier school years than previously. Girls are being moved too, but where boys are concerned you get a sense of parental desperation to get them out of the State system ASAP.

So maybe the author's musings about single-sex versus coeducational school is a bit of a red herring. The real question is how long parents can afford to leave a student in a toxic State school. At this stage many parents are opting to move boys to a private school at the end of year 5 (used to be at the end of year 7).

The lack of boys in years 6&7 in certain State primary schools is an embarrassment and some teaching and some school jobs are said to be threatened.

Peter, you said:

"Some co-ed schools use some single-sex classes to get the best of both worlds."

Every. Single. School. In. Australia. Should. Be. Like. That.

No need for further speculation about what type of school is best. Co-ed schools with single-sex classes. Problem solved. As you said Peter, it's the best of both worlds.

I went to an all boy's school for 10 years. Vicious punishments and massive over-emphasis on sporting prowess.

I support co-ed however single sex schools also serve a useful purpose, suiting some students and their families.

When one looks through all of the independent research on education, boys and girls do not differ greatly in learning preferences at all. For example both prefer learning by doing and few like learning by listening (the usual method used for efficiency in big classes).

Of course boys and girls can differ in the content they like however that flexes over time and between individuals. Generalising doesn't work and providing adequate choice is the way ahead.

The variables that stand head and shoulders above anything else in ensuring a good results and happy students are the teacher and the school culture. It is well proven that an innovative, motivated teacher who regards students as individuals and treats them with respect will always get the best out of them.

It is interesting that private schools can attract and retain good teachers. It is not about salary or working hours, because teachers in private schools work longer hours and for the same take home pay or less.

Arguably teachers in private schools are better selected and are more motivated - probably because achievement of their higher level needs (Hertzberg) is possible. Certainly you don't meet many teachers there who are forever complaining, as State school teachers do, that Education Dept mismanagement and politics detract from teaching delivery.

Of course some would add from the sad experience of their own students that the prevailing culture in the State system is not conducive to a happy, productive learning experience for boys either. But then the State system is apparently no place for male teachers either.

How can the State education system deliver better outcomes when it does not utilise 50% of the talent available in the community? What is so different and wrong about State education that it cannot attract the young male teachers being snapped up by private schools? Fix that and you may well have solved the problem of achieving better education for all, regardless of gender.

Peter JH,
You have asked for proof, but proof is readily available from nearly every school in the country. Nearly every teacher in every school knows that boys are generally getting lower marks than girls, and in many schools the boys are getting much lower marks than girls.

But rarely has any teacher ever said anything about it. Instead the teachers have been trained to believe that boys should be getting lower marks because they are male. As pointed out by “eet”, the author thinks of boys as being somehow defective in almost every way possible way when compared to girls. That is feminism. Also the author did not say anything about the lower marks being gained by boys. That is a non-mentionable.

Under a feminist education system, you are very lucky if you can even understand the syllabus, but there have been very few moves to change the education system to accommodate boys.

Under a feminist education system, the boys are always bad or defective in some way, and the education system does not have to change to suit the boy’s way of learning. Under a feminist education system, the boys must change to suit the system, and if the boys are not learning much from the current education system, then this is the fault of the boys and not the system.

My daughter spent seven miserable (for her and for us) weeks at an all girls school before we moved her to a smaller co-ed state school a considerable distance further from home. Despite having to catch two buses there and two buses back each day, she blossomed, continued her education at college and has gone on to study law at university.

My son is in the final week of four wonderful years at a state all boys school. He has immensely enjoyed his high school years, has achieved academic excellence far beyond our expectations and has developed into a confident well adjusted young man, who is looking forward to continuing his education at college.

Despite their differing needs, the state system has served my children very well – in no small measure due to the principals and teaching staff at each school and their willingness to do what was best for each child.

A note to all the feminists and anti-feminists:

Hello? Anyone listening?

This article is not, repeat not, about ways of educating boys. Nor is it about feminist influence in the clasrooms.
It's about single-sex schooling.

The question from the mother is a reasonable one, and Peter has replied with a careful answer leaning on current research. Check the work by Andrew Martin and Herb Marsh (now at Sydney Uni and Oxford respectively)

If you are obsessed by feminism, so be it.

It doesn't have much to do with this article.

And to the guy who wants to change every line Peter wrote - hey mate, go write your own article. Or have a beer, or stroke puss.

But allow other people to develop an argument without looking for ideology everywhere.

Now, that feels much better.
I shall go for a swim!

Sorry we've been such naughty children Mr West, but can't you tell from the responses by the good folks above that you can't talk about what's nice for kids at school without the sexist issue raising its ugly head?

It's there everyday of the year. Feminist sexism is in their faces. They obviously see it as a problem pertinent to single sex vs co-ed schooling.

Whilst it may not be what you intended with your well-meaning and well written text Peter, it is unfortunately, what you got.

Doesn't that tell you something?

There's a clue in there - have a think about it.

Bond Pete,

I think that it doesn’t really matter if the school is co-ed or single sex, as either type of school can have good or bad teaching systems. But the author’s general negativity towards boys would not be conducive towards the good education of boys, and the author’s general negativity towards boys does very much indicate that the author is feminist.

The author says that it is important for the parents to shop around and ask questions before enrolling their son in a school, and the author is completely correct in that respect.

If the school is co-ed, then parents should definitely ask how many boys receive high marks compared to girls, and if there is a major difference, then the parents should ask why.

The parents could ask how the school would regard their son if their son likes to play competitive games or sport. If the school said that this would be interpreted as being an attempt by the boy to “strengthen their sense of strong masculinity”, then the parents could ask why so many women compete in the Olympic games, or are those women actually men in disguise.

The parents could ask how the school would regard their son if their son likes to read adventure novels. If the school said that this would be interpreted as the boy finding “descriptive tasks tiresome”, then the parents could ask why millions of girls rushed out to buy the latest copy of Harry Potter, or were those girls actually boys in disguise.

And so on.

If the school has nothing but negativity towards boys, and wants to interpret everything that a boys does as being negative, then the parents could very well decide that the school is feminist, and decide not to enrol their son in that school

A short-cut would be to enquire about the ratio of male and female teachers and what roles they perform.

Mr West did not speculate about the desirability of having relatively equal numbers (or as close to as possible without setting quotas) of men and women teachers in both co-ed and single sex schools, however it is very relevant to the development of adolescents who need good male and female role models.

Many past students of Catholic schools, where single sex education was commonplace for decades, required that both teachers and students were of the same sex, resulting in a monoculture that for the students lasted through all of their important sexual and personality development stages. This put these students at a distinct disadvantage at university and in later life.

What some parents forget is that an education is for life and passing exams is just part of that. What really holds some people back in the workplace and in life is that they are uncomfortable or fearful dealing with the members of the opposite sex.

Our children have always had roughly the same number of boys and girls at their birthday parties and other social events, not through any instruction from us but because they normally have a mixed group of friends. Any weekend the 'drop ins' (always welcome) are likewise usually a mixed group.

Another crucial point not mentioned by Mr West is the importance of raising RESILIENT children. How do you do this if their exposure to the opposite sex in their day to day life is manipulated by (albeit) well meaning parents?

This is why many parents are so critical of public education system in Australia, which has few male teachers. Apologists would have us believe that young men are not interested in teaching however the discrimination against men in education is similar to that encountered in the nursing profession and wastes talent.

Parents should regard a pronounced imbalance in the male/female ratio of teachers at a school as a red flag indicating limited opportunities for the social and academic development of all students, regardless of sex

HRS

That was a good continuation of your original generalisations. I'm impressed that you seem to know the inner workings of every school and female teacher.

But, as I asked, a little factual back-up would be nice.

Peter JH,

I gave you that factual back-up. Stop living in denial.

Peter JH
Your questions regards facts are very generalised, but there are many facts and techniques for boys education available from this source http://resources.mhs.vic.edu.au/morethanmarks/index.htm

For a parent to decide on what school to send their son to, they should be asking the school principal many questions.

Ultimately schools are for education, so if it is a co-ed school, then the parents can ask the principal for a breakdown of average marks for girls and boys. There is likely to be a significant difference, so the parents can ask the principal why there is a difference. If the principal says that they do not know, then that school goes down to the bottom of the list.

If the principal says that the difference between boys and girls marks are the same in the school down the road (which is the most common response likely from a principal), then that is not a reason but an excuse, and teachers are not being paid to continuously give excuses.

The parents will be most likely told that the school is very concerned about the lower marks being achieved by boys, so the parents should ask to see the formal written plan that the school has developed to increase the marks being achieved by boys. My experience has been that 80% of the time the school will have no such formal or written plan, so no changes are likely to take place in that school.

You can try this for yourself. Pick at random a number of schools in your town and ask those questions. You can report your findings.

I also think that you could be confusing feminism with the female gender.

A racist is someone who maligns a race, as very few racists do not malign a race.

A feminist is someone who maligns the male gender, as very few feminists do not malign the male gender.

It is like a formula (such as F = ma or m = Mn), but a feminist does not have to be female.

Great article, very revealing comments.
Girls have achieved higher marks at school than boys for over 100 years, or since they started attending school in great numbers. We ignored that result until second wave feminism and few went on to uni prior to the 70s. they do better, not because they're brighter ( or because female teachers are necssarily afvouring them) but because they mature emotionally about 2 years earlier than boys - just in time for the big exams.
And far from state schools being bastions of feminist political correctness, most co-ed state schools are now 70% male, 30% female and at my daughters co-ed comprehensive most of their teachers were male, and a more wonderful bunch of warm, funny and sympathetic charcaters you couldn't wish for. funnily enough my daughters didn't seem to notice whether their teachers were male or female, just whether they were good at teaching or not.
Most state schools now run all boy classes and pathways to manhood programs, something as the mother of daughters I felt slightly jealous of. far from them favouring the girls, they were rather left out of special stuff like that. never mind, equlaity isn't about getting exactly the same of everything, its about feeling you are just as valuable to the school you attend as any other student, and my girls certainly felt that.

ena,

Where did you get those numbers from because Brendan Nelson as federal Minister for Education said he was prepared to go in to bat for legislative change to assist the Catholic Education Office over the crisis caused by the falling numbers of male teachers.

The NSW Minister for Education agrees with Nelson:
http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve06/1295jervis.html

Mr Beattie in Queensland has made similar statements about the low number of male teachers in that State.

ena, If you know where there are lots of male teachers you are aware of something the federal and state departments of education don’t know about.

70% male students and 30% female students were the statistics I was referring to. However, in state high schools there are many more male teachers than there are in primary schools, which is the sector the fuss is mostly about. In my girl's co-ed public school, I don't know what the actual percentage proportion was - but it must have been close to 60% female, 40% male. interestingly, despite more female teachers in the profession, there are many more men in the higher ranks of even that profession.
The reason there are more female teachers than male is that when I was at school in the 70s, girls divided their career options up like this; if you were clever, you became a teacher. If you were average, you became a secretary or a nurse, and if you were not very clever (at least at school), you wanted to be a hairdresser. Many of those 45plus women teachers now form the backbone of our schools, but they'll be gone in 10 years. Now, we attract even fewer men because teaching still pays badly, and there are many more better paying options for boys ( and always have been). Now there are for girls, as well. If we want more male teachers and better quality teachers in general - we will have to pay them more. It isn't active discrimination or political correctness or radical feminism (why would anyone want to keep a low status, low paying profession all to themselves - it simply doesn't make sense) that has led to the feminisation of teaching, its just a combination of social pressures and economic reality. in fact, when all those 45 plus women go, the pay for teachers probably will go up, because we'll desperately need to attract people to the profession again.

ena
Your previous belief that boys are naturally less emotionally mature than girls by 2 years is incorrect and a discriminatory statement.

In 2002 the Federal Government undertook an inquiry into boys education. After that inquiry the government also sponsored a number of other research projects. No research project has ever found that boys are naturally less emotionally mature than girls. However that misconception is still being said to members of the public by at least some school teachers and some school principles.

What nearly all studies have found to date is that the quality of the teaching is the most predominant factor in the educational outcomes of both boys and girls, and this is independent of whether the school is single sex or co-ed.
After the inquiry and after numerous other studies were undertaken, the Federal government developed 10 Guiding principles for success in educating boys.
.http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/policy_initiatives_reviews/key_issues/boys_education/guiding_principles_in_educating_boys.htm
1. Collect evidence and undertake ongoing inquiry on the issue, recognising that schools can do something about it.
2. Adopt a flexible, whole school approach with a person and team responsible.
3. Ensure good teaching for boys, and all students in all classes.
4. Be clear about the kinds of support particular boys require.
5. Cater for different learning styles preferred by boys.
6. Recognise that gender matters and stereotypes should be challenged.
7. Develop positive relationships, as they are critical to success.
8. Provide opportunities for boys to benefit from positive male role models from within and beyond the school.
9. Focus on literacy in particular.
10. Use information and communication technologies (ICTs) as a valuable tool.

Nowhere in the 10 guiding principles does it state that boys are normally less emotionally mature than girls, and making such a statement is discriminatory and only maligns boys.

I would also think that the author should seriously consider the 10 guiding principles before any more articles are written regarding boys and their education.

Oh well, I'm only applying the everyday, practical observations of every single parent of my acquaintance when looking at their male and female children, but I'm sure academics and researchers are far more expert at such things than the men and women who actually bring them up. Funny how they even mature physically at different rates too, isn't it? You don't think that might have some effect on their emotional maturity, perhaps? Go look at a mixed class of 14 year olds in any school in the country - the girls will on average be taller than the boys and have breasts and waists and hips like women, almost all of them will be menstruating. Most 14 year old boys still look ( and sound) like kids, their voices haven't broken yet and they haven't started that growth spurt that will see them outstrip the girls in height in only a few years, but your experts would tell us this means nothing. If anyone is discriminating against boys at this point it would seem to be nature. But that's okay, for all the angst about how boys do at school in comparison to girls, according to any statistic you care to name ( average earnings, percentage in management, high earning, high prestige and leadership jobs, control of wealth, accumulated superannuation) boys seem to end up doing very well indeed for themselves once they leave school. The question I wonder no-one ever seems to ask is what happens to all those high achieving girls once they finish school? So few of them ever seem to use their skills as well as boys do. Is it their fault, perhaps? Or, as the voices raised in defence of the ways boys are treated at school argue so vigorously,is there some sort of discrimination in the wider world that works against them? If you push one argument (school is feminised and so holds boys back ) it would seem you must also support the other (the world of work is masculinised and so holds girls back), if you are truly fair minded.

ena,

The 10 point guidelines were developed after considerable work was undertaken. For example:- one research project involved interviewing 1800 boys throughout SA.

At no time was it found that boys should be naturally backward or less mature than girls in any grade from grade 1 to grade 12. If the boys had fallen behind the girls in any grade, then this was always attributed to factors other than biology, and up until the early 1980’s, boys were generally ahead of girls in academic results across all grades and all subjects.

However you would be free to write to the federal government and tell them that they are wrong based on your observations.

Even if it were true that boys were naturally less mature than girls, then teachers would have to make allowances for this, and if any teacher was not making allowances for this, then that teacher would be negligent in their duty of teaching both boys and girls.

When i say they are not as emotionally mature, that's not a put down, its simply an observation based on their tendency to hit puberty later than girls. this has been true throughout human history, and all the govt experts in all the land can't change the fact of that. we can dispute whether the arrival of puberty effects the mental and emotional maturation rates of girls and boys differently, but I would respectfully submit that it is likely to have some effect.
Also, perhaps I am mistaken, but I understood that girls have outperformed boys academically since they started to go to school in any great numbers - for at least 100 years. My theory would be because of the effect of their earlier physical and emotional maturation and also because girls are socialised from an early age to please - which has benefits and handicaps - but which means they comply more with classroom requirements. Until second wave feminism in the 70s, we ignored their better performance, and most did not go on to higher education, now we don't. And I'd still be interested on your take on what happens to all the high achieving girls after they leave school and how come no govt task force is interested in that?

Ena,
It seems that you know much about boy’s education, but there are some actual facts contained here.

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/educating_boys.htm

The most important factor in quality education is the teaching methods being used. Teaching methods outweigh all other factors including the age of the student, gender, socio-economic background, or whether or not the school is single sex or co-ed.

Women in the workforce is not really on topic, but you may find the following interesting.

15.3 % of Australian boys lack the literary skills to benefit sufficiently from their education opportunities, compared to just 8.7% of girls.

The year 12 retention rate for girls is between 11 and 12 % higher than it is for boys.

29 % of Australian males aged 25-34 have a tertiary education, compared with 38% of females.

Male teachers and boys have been falling from the education system for many years, but this has never been mentioned by feminists. Perhaps the feminists of Australia want women to run Australia, and with fewer and fewer educated men, then women can run Australia.

But while women are getting more tertiary qualifications, women also drop out of full time employment at a much earlier age than men. This is alarming considering that Australia is now competing against countries such as China. With a population of 1.2 billion, China has also established over 2000 Universities and colleges with a current student enrolment of over 6 million, (or nearly 1/3 of Australia’s entire population). With such large numbers of educated and skilled people, China is already absorbing industry from many other countries.

With fewer educated men then women can take over Australia, but those women will also find that they have to work very long hours each day, and quite likely they will have no retirement age. Australian women will also have to pay high levels of tax to support all the unemployed men, and Australian women will also have to compete against the very large numbers of educated and skilled people now in countries such as China.

The women of Australia need every skilled and qualified man they can find.

Absolutely right, as the men of Australia also need skilled and educated women. A skilled and educated population is at the core of a stable, prosperous and harmonious society.
However, there is a good reason why more girls stay on to year 12 and it isn't bias against boys at school. Since 1980 half of all jobs for teenage boys have disappeared, but a staggering two thirds of jobs for teenage girls have simply evapourated, as well. That's one reason why far more kids stay on - there simply are no jobs for them to go to - particularly for girls. Boys still have some chance of getting an apprenticeship or job of some kind if they leave at year 10, girls have virtually none. Indeed, Professor Margaret Vickers at UWS has done some excellent research which also shows that while boys who leave in Year 10 often have a chequered path through the labour market, most girls who leave in year 10 disappear from the labour market altogether - never to reappear! That's one hell of an incentive for them to stay at school. That's why what happens to girls and boys once they leave school, in the labour market, is not off topic, it directly effects the decisions they and their parents make about staying on to year 12 or not.