I just don't get what the government is up to sometimes. There is this huge campaign afoot to improve educational standards for boys, to combat the fact that girls do better at school than boys. So now we're desperately hiring male teachers to act as role models. And complaining that won't be enough and some other measures may be "needed". Apparently the difference is 14% by age 14 (14% of what I don't know but anyway). But there are reasons why girls outperform boys. Girls are better behaved, they spend more hours doing homework, they fight less - right through life, look at the prison population, it's mostly men. And I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything to monitor what happens to boys in school, to check if we're failing to push them as hard as we are the girls. But... BUT...
Why is it that whenever it's men outperforming the response is "it must be a baby thing", "girls just aren't good at this stuff". When women are outperforming it's cause for immediate policy change. If boys need role models in school, don't women need role models in boardrooms, in churches, in Hollywood?Monday, July 09, 2007
One Rule For One...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I believe that if the problem was reversed, the government would put just as much effort into fixing a female-underperforming issue. There's no point going to these extreme lengths to measure performance and statistically analyse it, unless you do something with the findings.
And it's 14% behind in the SATS Stage 3 (Age 14) English tests btw. http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/database/stats/genderstats.html
This clearly shows that the average girl kicks the average boy's ass. But I never was an average boy ...
Post a Comment