All of the studies examined in Scotland were commissioned by the Scottish
Executive/Scottish Government (the devolved Government in Scotland) or the Scottish Education Department, pre-devolution, to respond to legislation and policy, for example the Equality Act 2006. The work undertaken by Condie et al. (2006) was commissioned by the Scottish Government to support the Gender Equality Scheme (2008 – 2011). This work resulted in a paper being published giving strategies considered successful in addressing boys’ underachievement. Skelton et al.’s (2007) study was commissioned in response to the Gender Equality Duty and the studies carried out in England and Wales were also in response to government and government bodies’ requests.
One study carried out in Australia (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2002; Zbar et al., 2003) illustrates the type of activity, in response to policy, that aimed to
address the issue of boys’ underachievement. This project was instigated by the Australian Government as a result of concern about boys’ underachievement, identified from
attainment data. The project focused on boys’ underachievement because of the evidence: (poorer literacy skills and poorer after-school employment rates in particular), that showed boys living with social disadvantage were not having their needs met. Girls who gained
most were those in higher socio-economic groups (less disadvantaged). The Australian study had significant political input, being driven by the Government. The whole programme was supported by considerable financial investment. There was an impetus through policy to promote work on gender differences in attainment but only Australia carried out a wide scale and longer term study to meet the demands of the policy imperative.
5.4.2 Chronology
The earliest review examined was the work carried out by Powney (1996). At the time of the review Powney asserted that there was little research in Scotland on gendered patterns of attainment, with any research that there was focused on girls’ underachievement and lack of equal opportunities. In Scotland this was followed by further studies by Tinklin et al. (2001); Forde et al. (2006) and Condie et al. (2006). As far as can be determined, there has been no follow up to these studies, other than a publication as a sequel to Condie’s report (Forde et al., 2008), nor any further advice or study of this kind commissioned by Government since Condie’s report in 2006. Looking to England and the rest of the UK, Sukhnandan et al. (1999) and Sukhnandan et al. (2000) (published separately in two parts) appeared to be the first study of this type. This was followed by the work of Ofsted in 2003, then a study by Younger and Warrington in 2005 (although their study took place over a four-year period from 2000 to 2004), and the most recent study by Skelton et al. in 2007. The Australian study was of longer duration beginning with a published report of recommendations in 2002, and followed up with action research in schools and an
evaluation report in 2008. Estyn in Wales also published a report in 2008. The ten studies carried out between 1996 and 2008 demonstrated the importance placed by governments on addressing this apparent underachievement of boys.
5.4.3. Focus on academically able pupils
This doctoral study has a particular focus on the academically able pupils. It was Powney (1996) who reported that there was little evidence of research on gender difference and high attainment despite the recognition, through external examination data gathered by Powney in England and Scotland, that there was a pattern emerging amongst academically able pupils. As far as can be determined, there has been no specific study in this area before or since Powney’s review.
Of the key studies considered, three included references to the more able group:
Sukhnandan (2000) and Estyn (2008) included the specific category A(A*) to C at GCSE; and Tinklin mentioned the inclusion of higher ability groups. Younger and Warrington’s study stated that all abilities and social classes were included. Only one of the case study schools in Condie’s work was not in an area of disadvantage and one school did look at streaming by ability. Skelton et al. (2007) made reference to the middle class group when she observed that the behaviour and anti-learning culture, traditionally assigned to those who were from working class backgrounds, is present amongst middle class boys. 5.4.4 Methodology of the study
Of particular interest in examining the studies exploring ‘in-school’ factors was the methodology used to investigate the factors that could be influencing the
underachievement of boys.
All of the studies used a literature review either exclusively or as part of the study. Only three of the ten key studies used literature reviews alone. It is worth noting that the literature review carried out by Forde et al. (2006) was the one used by Condie et al. (2006). All of the other studies reviewed strategies suggested by schools, or gathered evidence from case study work in schools. For example, Sukhnandan used responses from 97 local authorities and followed up with some case study work in schools. The work of Younger and Warrington (2005) developed a longer-term programme that trialled some of the interventions to address the factors considered to have a negative impact on boys. In the work carried out in schools, professionals, parents and pupils were surveyed or questioned. In only three of the studies: Tinklin et al. (2001), Younger and Warrington (2005), and Condie et al. (2006), were views about what could be factors influencing learning sought from pupils through interview. It was Tinklin et al. in 2001 who recommended that pupils’ views should be sought and used to inform any strategy. The Australian project was on a much larger scale than any of the other studies examined, both from the perspective of investment of time and financial resources. The project went beyond the collection of evidence to find factors to formulate a strategy and interventions, to a pilot trialled in schools. An initial project - Boys’ Education Lighthouse Schools (BELS) ran from 2003 till 2005 (at a cost of A$7M) and involved 350 schools. This was then followed up by the Success for Boys programme (at a cost of A$19.4M) involving
1601 schools. This Success for Boys programme used the interventions over a lengthy period of time to establish impact. Despite the scale of the project there did not appear to be evidence of pupils’ views being sought directly.
What is concluded from this analysis of the methodologies used is that not all of the studies engaged directly with work in schools, and the evidence of factors or successful interventions in schools were being based mainly on views of professionals and through school inspections or similar. Only three used the pupil voice. All of the investigations carried out in schools began with the ‘hypothesis’ of a particular factor being the cause of boys’ underachievement and set out through interventions to prove or disprove the
factor(s) under scrutiny.
5.4.5 Factors proposed to explain differential patterns of attainment amongst boys and girls
Before exploring the findings of the key studies about in-school factors it is worth noting that the findings tended to be generalisations, which can be helpful when considering the macro level, but generalisations are not helpful when considering issues at an individual level (Arnold 1997).
The main points arising from the comparative analysis of these key studies have been grouped under four headings: curriculum, learning, teaching and assessment; attributes of boys; the school culture and learning environment; and gender as a construct influencing attainment. However, it must be stressed that these groupings are artificial and to isolate each factor is not to disregard how these factors can intersect.
Curriculum, learning and teaching and assessment
The issue of all pupils having open access to all curricular opportunities, which was an issue before the 1990s, was no longer the case. However, there might still have been issues about choice of subjects (Tinklin et al., 2001; Zbar et al., 2003) because of gender identity (Skelton et al., 2007) and similarly advice, notably career advice, which was along gender stereotypical lines (Skelton et al., 2007). The Australian study also raised the issue of the curriculum but from the stance of seeing a prescriptive curriculum not addressing the needs of boys, rather stressing the importance of curriculum frameworks to allow teachers
Over half the researchers mentioned learning and teaching approaches and learning styles as being important factors in boys’ learning. Skelton et al. (2007) challenged the claim of boys having specific learning styles from the evidence gathered.
Assessment, and notably the types of assessment instruments, and the way boys
approached assessments as being different, were raised by several researchers as being a barrier for boys. Skelton et al. (2007) challenged the notion of gender-biased assessment procedures from their evidence.
Attributes of boys
The key points raised in several studies were boys having a negative attitude to school and learning; peer pressure that reinforced a masculinity running counter to the school ethos; and boys’ behaviour, which was mentioned most frequently. However, the focus of these studies covered all ability ranges and social class with no mention specifically of middle class/advantaged high achieving boys. As previously mentioned in section 5.4.3, Skelton et al. (2007) did suggest that behaviour that was disruptive to learning was also seen amongst middle class boys but did not define their ability.
School culture and learning environment
School culture and the learning environment were cited in several studies as being influential in promoting positive attitudes amongst boys. The social and cultural
environment out of school could influence learner identity, but learner identity was also influenced by the culture or ethos of the school. Tinklin et al. (2001) and Powney (1996) both raised societal factors and socialisation as shaping aspiration and ambition
particularly in the context of learning, and impacting on cultures and subcultures. Few of the studies placed emphasis on gender construction and how this impacts on the learner. Gender construction and the influence on achievement
Despite the extensive literature considering gender from the perspective of how it is constructed and enacted, the key studies made little reference to this aspect other than the work of Skelton et al. (2007), and the literature review carried out by Forde et al. (2006). It was mentioned in the Australian Success for Boys programme, where this was raised in the context of indigenous boys. However, that is not to say that gender in relation to some of the factors was not mentioned. An example was literacy. As teachers grappled with trying to improve the standards of literacy amongst boys by using ‘boy friendly’ texts,
and gender duality. Ofsted (2003) also took an essentialist stance in claiming that boys had specific attributes to learning as did the Australian Boys Getting It Right report (2002) with the focus on boys and their learning and not on all pupils.
To continue to refer to boys and girls as two homogeneous groups, particularly where the focus is only on addressing the issue of boys’ underachievement might also compromise underachieving girls. Several points were raised in relation to gender duality. Tinklin et al. (2001) promoted a ‘gender jigsaw’. Underachievement not applying to all boys and all girls was raised by others (Younger and Warrington, 2005; Forde et al., 2006; Estyn, 2008). Forde et al. (2006) went further in suggesting that strategies had failed because masculinities and femininities were not recognised, with boys being seen as a
homogeneous group, and boys not being giving the opportunity to consider the range of masculinities.
Butler (2006) points to gender duality as the cause of continuing to see gender differences both in delivery and responses. There is confirmation by Davies (2006) in her study, using a deconstructivist stance, that this duality of gender sees gendered practices continuing to exist. This was echoed by the importance placed by Davison (2000) and Dillabough (2006) on moving away from categorisation, especially binary gender. Jackson (1998) and
Whitelaw et al. (2000), amongst others, considered the impact of relationships between boys and their teachers and their peers, from a gendered perspective, and the impact this had on attitudes to academic study. The importance of student/teacher relationships was emphasised in the study carried out in Australia. Pedagogy tended to be framed in these studies in terms of different learning styles and teaching approaches to favour boys or girls without consideration of pedagogy being a vehicle for countering gender stereotyping and at the same time responding to gender in a constructive way.
Skelton et al. (2007) stressed the importance of considering gender and its construction. The main factor they found was the performativity of girls and boys who acted out their gender as opposites. This self-generated gender identity was deep rooted and pervaded all ages and transcended social class, and was reinforced by peer pressure, which, could contribute to a lack of focus on learning. School culture could reinforce this duality or could counter it. Schools that promote a binary view of gender and do not consider multiplicity of gender identities could create barriers to solutions.
5.4.6 Strategies and interventions
The range of factors identified in the studies generated a number of strategies and interventions. These strategies, particularly in the Australian case (the widespread development programme initiated in schools) aimed to bring about change and
improvement. The identified strategies are considered in broad areas: whole school policy; curriculum, learning and teaching; support; classroom organisation; and professional development for staff.
Policy at whole school level was a strong element and advocated matching strategy to local context (Sukhnandan, 2000; Tinklin et al., 2001; Forde et al., 2006; Skelton et al., 2007; Estyn, 2008), as well as being responsive to making changes as a result of any evidence gathered (Tinklin et al., 2001). Tinklin et al. (2001) stressed the need for a range of strategies, and the importance of being aware of the complexity of the range of factors. Behaviour policy (Tinklin et al., 2001) was one that was emphasised, promoting clear expectations and high standards (Ofsted, 2003) and building positive attitudes.
Delivering high quality learning and teaching was raised by all as the key to improvement, particularly learning and teaching that was motivational and promoted positive attitudes (Zbar et al., 2003), learner centred (Estyn, 2008) and catered for different learning styles, with some not advocating ‘boys’ learning styles but considering such pedagogy as ‘gender sensitive’ approaches (Forde et al., 2006; Forde 2014). Estyn (2008) emphasised the importance of not having a gender stereotypical stance. The need to have practical activities for boys, formative assessment and vocational opportunities was stressed (Ofsted, 2003). Only Estyn (2008) mentioned the use of ICT as a motivational tool to engage boys with learning, and for the development of assessment for boys. The data analysed in several of the studies showed that boys’ literacy skills, as assessed, were poorer than girls and so this was seen as a key strand to focus on in schools.
Support through mentoring (Sukhnandan, 2000; Zbar et al., 2003; Condie et al., 2006; Estyn, 2008) with a specific intervention of using role models to change attitudes about learning, was advocated. Younger and Warrington (2005) were keen to stress that
mentoring should not just be for those seen as not achieving a specific measure, but should be for all who needed this level of support. Support of parents through parental
engagement was not a strong theme but one that was raised in the Scottish studies by Tinklin et al. and Condie et al.
Classroom organisation through single sex groupings or classes was recommended
(Sukhnandan, 2000; Ofsted, 2003; Condie et al., 2006) with some emphasising the need to have these only where evidence showed that there would be a clear benefit (Forde et al., 2006), and ensuring that gender stereotyping was avoided (Sukhnandan, 2000). In one of the case study schools in Condie’s study, a school serving areas of deprivation, high ability streaming was used aiming to accelerate progress for identified pupils. This was not just targeted at boys. However, one of the issues found was that the ‘top’ groups tended to be comprised mainly of girls, which raised issues for those boys in these classes.
The theme of professional development (Sukhnandan, 2000) focused on improving the quality of delivery as well as raising staff awareness about gender (Tinklin et al., 2001; Forde et al., 2006) with Skelton’s focus being much more directed towards teachers working with pupils to consider different ways of thinking about gender. Working collaboratively within (Tinklin et al., 2001) and between schools was also suggested (Younger and Warrington, 2005).
The Australian study invested heavily, both in time and resources, in professional
development and this was their key driver for improvement. The BELS programme, trialled in 350 schools, was scaled up to operate in over 1600 schools after two years. The
programme aimed to develop teachers’ understanding of how to support boys in their learning by creating a quality learning environment, with the underpinning theme of developing strong relationships. The programme went beyond specific interventions or classroom strategies to whole school considerations of leading and managing change, including teachers’ involvement in action research, with teachers and schools being provided with a range of professional development material.
Finally, explicitly or implicitly, a strong, positive culture was advocated to bring about improvement, and a climate to change attitudes towards learning. Only Younger and Warrington (2005) and Sukhnandan (2000) emphasised the need for strong support from the leadership of the school.
5.4.7 Impact
Considering all of these studies, there has been a considerable investment in time, and in the case of the Australian study, considerable financial investment. There is general
some cases, a study was built on the one before, using some of the themes and ideas from previous work. With this large body of work there was an expectation of seeing impact through quantitative attainment data.
Some of the studies did not set out to show impact but were reviewing literature to provide information (Powney, 1996; Sukhnandan, 2000; Forde et al., 2006). The key outcome of some of the other studies was that it was not easy to measure the impact because there was no data (Sukhnandan, 2000), or no data to show long term impact (Ofsted, 2003), or the timescale of the project was limited (Tinklin et al., 2001; Condie et al., 2006). In some studies, notably Younger and Warrington (2005), the impact appeared to vary in schools, with their advising that there could be impact from strategies adopted but not with the view of there being a ‘quick fix’. Estyn (2008), drawing evidence from inspections and school visits, had not found evidence of success in schools and they cited the reason that schools did not have policies or strategies in place to address the underachievement of boys. Skelton et al. (2007) in their review were very clear that there would not be sustainability unless gender construction was considered and there was a move away from gender duality.
None of the studies were longitudinal, that is following the impact on identified boys to monitor their progress in educational achievement over a period of time. All but the work of Younger and Warrington, some of the case studies in Condie’s work, and the Australian project, were short lasting: in the region of a year.
The main impact emerging from the large-scale project Success for Boys was the capacity building amongst the staff and improved pupil engagement with learning. With the