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!