Testing across the world through international assessments such as PISA and national assessment scrutiny of attainment data, for example SQA data (Scotland), is important to raise issues, and can and does lead to education policy being directed to improve standing in these tests such as PISA. This in turn can steer curricular and pedagogical changes. This can have a positive outcome but can also lead to teachers being driven by the demands of accountability (Lingard et al., 2013). This is highlighted by Martino and Rezai-Rashti (2012) in their review of the attainment gap by gender in the Ontario context where the use of attainment data in the form of standardised testing was a “basis for the endorsement of particular truth claims about the gender achievement gap” and the policy decisions to address the gap (Martino and Rezai-Rashti (2012: 428). This included focusing on gender differences with an approach that cements the binary concept of gender, thus reinforcing the logic that there are essential differences between boys and girls. An issue using data alone linking gender to attainment, with the sole function of accountability, can lead to “the problems of quantitative research that fails to engage adequately with the substantive theoretical and empirical literature” (Connolly, 2008: 249).
Accountability that focuses almost exclusively on attainment data in the form explored in this chapter, can lead to a tendency to address the underachievement of one particular
25 Around half a million students in 65 economies (economies are defined rather than nations because China
has several regions involved) take part in the PISA survey. This sample represents about 28 million 15-year- olds globally.
group over another. This appears to be the case for gender, which has been subsumed into an equality agenda that has diluted the importance of exploring gender and its link with attainment (Eurydice, 2010). The focus is now on those living with disadvantage (Equalities Review, 2007; Scottish Government, 2016). This has arisen because of the stark and concerning data between advantaged and disadvantaged pupils and is an increasing concern in Scotland. There is no suggestion that removing the barriers for this disadvantaged group should not be key priority.
There are three important points to make here. Firstly, that focusing on one particular group should not be at the exclusion of considering attainment and achievement by gender or any other focus of diversity. In the case of gender, there is evidence of gendered patterns of attainment that require investigation and, as such, policy, practice and evidence needed to bring about change. Secondly, there is a mutual exclusivity when focusing on one aspect, which does not acknowledge the complexity and the intersectionality of advantage/disadvantage/class with other aspects such as gender, race, ethnicity and disability. To continue to have one focus means that the education system will continue to fail some rather than addressing the needs of all. Finally, only considering the raw
attainment data is a simplistic stance. As suggested by Stoet and Geary (2015) there are greater considerations that simply using the data. As a matter of importance consideration should be given to “value frameworks” (p. 149) to influence equal opportunities, amongst other aspects.
4.6 Concluding remarks
In summary, this review has considered relevant legislation and policy, and reports arising from the policy to support schools and local authorities in relation to gender and
attainment, and the conclusion is that the ambition of both the UK and Scottish
Governments is to reduce the gap in performance amongst boys and girls. The ideologies underpinning the policies relating to gender tend to see the gap as the boys’ gap with the focus on boys rather than the improvement in opportunities for both boys and girls. There has also been limited focus on high attaining pupils despite the evidence of the larger attainment differential in this group. Boys and girls are still seen as homogenous groups despite the extensive body of research on the concept of gender, gender identity and discourses as discussed in chapter 3. However, the review findings also suggested a ‘gender blindness’ in relation to later policies with gender being subsumed into inclusion and diversity. There appears to be less of a focus on gender per se and more of a focus on
disadvantage in socio-economic terms, but the issue of gender in education as a barrier should not be lost, as well as the intersectionality of socio-economic indicators and gender. In addition, no reports were found to show how policy was influencing practice and
outcomes by gender, although the duty of local authorities and schools is clear with the requirement to report on the impact of policy promoting gender equity. A recent statistical release (UK) in 2014 (Department of Education, 2014) of the ‘early years’ attainment profile again showed no change in the gender gap with girls outperforming boys in all measures. This was using data for all boys and all girls. There can be no prediction other than the attainment gap will still be apparent in 2030 based on this early years’ data unless there is a change in policy.
The final chapter of this literature review explores some of the key studies that have led to suggested interventions and strategies to improve attainment outcomes in relation to gender.
Chapter 5: Studies on factors/influences and interventions