Girls outperform boys at every stage in England’s schools. By the end of primary, 70 per cent reach the expected standard in reading, writing and maths compared with 60 per cent of boys (Greg Hurst writes).
This gap is evident throughout education. Last year 23.7 per cent of GCSEs sat by girls were awarded top grades of 7, 8 or 9 compared with 17.5 per cent by boys, and 56.6 per cent of young women were going to university but 44.1 per cent of young men.
Girls’ education is profoundly important and should be celebrated. But their success masks the underachievement at school by too many boys, especially those from poorer families.
Their success is solely because of bias in teachers. The algorithm used to decide GCSE grades before being scrapped proved this, as girls made up the majority of people dropped a grade.
Female success in schools is because the entire classroom structure is designed around female learning. They has been countless studies that show men overwhelmingly learn in a hands on and active participative environment, while women learn from a passive environment. The damage done to the western schools was intentional and the same reason why gender segregated schools overwhelmingly outperform their counterparts.
I'd understood that this was the point of the exercise, not some anomaly.
The easiest way to bring parity is to hammer down on the successful demographics and prevent them from achieving progress.
The fact that some working class boys are utterly, utterly screwed is some minor consequence. Feminism has never been a poor people's religion, much less one that expends much effort looking out for poor boys.
Notice that boys "underachieve", which implies agency. I'm guessing girls who don't succeed are somehow victims of this or that "system".
Their success is solely because of bias in teachers. The algorithm used to decide GCSE grades before being scrapped proved this, as girls made up the majority of people dropped a grade.
Female success in schools is because the entire classroom structure is designed around female learning. They has been countless studies that show men overwhelmingly learn in a hands on and active participative environment, while women learn from a passive environment. The damage done to the western schools was intentional and the same reason why gender segregated schools overwhelmingly outperform their counterparts.
I'd understood that this was the point of the exercise, not some anomaly.
The easiest way to bring parity is to hammer down on the successful demographics and prevent them from achieving progress.
The fact that some working class boys are utterly, utterly screwed is some minor consequence. Feminism has never been a poor people's religion, much less one that expends much effort looking out for poor boys.