closing the gender gap? issues of gender equity in english secondary schools

This article was downloaded by: [Newcastle University]On: 09 October 2014, At: 04:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Discourse: Studies in the CulturalPolitics of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdis20

Closing the Gender Gap? Issues ofgender equity in English secondaryschoolsMike Younger a & Molly Warrington aa University of Cambridge , UKPublished online: 02 May 2007.

To cite this article: Mike Younger & Molly Warrington (2007) Closing the Gender Gap? Issues ofgender equity in English secondary schools, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,28:2, 219-242, DOI: 10.1080/01596300701289276

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596300701289276

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdis20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01596300701289276

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596300701289276

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Closing the Gender Gap? Issues of

gender equity in English secondary

schools

Mike Younger* and Molly WarringtonUniversity of Cambridge, UK

Issues of gender equity in English secondary schools over the last decade have been dominated by a

concern with the ‘‘under-achievement’’ of boys, implicitly acknowledging the apparent success of

strategies developed in schools in previous decades to improve equality of opportunity for girls.

This paper presents evidence to challenge this interpretation of the debate, arguing that policy-

makers need to engage more centrally with diversity and heterogeneity of gender constructions and

take note of inclusivity of needs rather than framing strategy within essentialist structures. We argue

here, through exemplification developed with teachers in English secondary schools over the period

2000�/2004, that there is a need to revisit policy and practice frameworks in England, as in

Australia, to reassert the needs of girls as well as boys and to develop gender-relational policies

which acknowledge and value difference and which have at their core the transformation of

traditional aspirations and expectations of education.

Introduction

The equal opportunities debate in English secondary schools over the last decade has

been dominated by a preoccupation with the apparent under-achievement of boys.

The emphasis on standards and performativity has meant that each year students’

performances in national tests taken at the age of 14 and 16 have been scrutinized

and the achievement levels in schools compared against those in neighbouring

schools and against centrally set national targets (Arnot & Miles, 2005; Warrington &

Younger, 1999; Younger, & Warrington, with McLellan, 2005b). Despite a rising

trajectory in these achievement levels through time, the focus has inevitably been on

the differential achievement of boys and girls. Thus, in 2005 the outcomes of both

National Curriculum assessments at 14� (see Table 1)1 and GCSE or equivalent

examinations taken at 16� (see Table 2A and 2B)2 revealed that more girls than boys

achieved national benchmarks. This pattern of gender inequality was stark and

persistent: at Key Stage 33 whilst boys’ performances were close to those of girls in

mathematics and science, girls out-performed boys by 10 or more percentage points

*Corresponding author: Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, 184 Hills Road,

Cambridge CB2 2PQ, UK. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0159-6306 (print)/ISSN 1469-3739 (online)/07/020219-24

# 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/01596300701289276

Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education

Vol. 28, No. 2, June 2007, pp. 219�242

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

in all other subjects except for physical education. An analysis of GCSE/GNVQ

results for 2005, whether in terms of all students in the year group (see Table 2A) or

in terms of those students entered for particular examinations (see Table 2B),

revealed similar trends, with a greater percentage of girls than boys achieving five or

more A*�/C grades and a greater percentage of girls achieving higher level passes

Table 1. Results in National Curriculum tests/teacher assessments at Key Stage 3, 2005

Students achieving level 5 (%)

Girls Boys

National Curriculum tests

English 80 67

Writing 82 70

Reading 75 61

Mathematics 74 73

Science 70 69

National Curriculum teacher assessments

ICT (Information technology) 74 65

Modern foreign languages 60 44

Design/technology 79 66

Art 83 67

Music 75 63

Geography 75 65

History 76 64

Physical education 75 77

Source: www.dfes.gov/uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000599 (accessed November 8, 2005).

Table 2A. Percentage of students in year group achieving the five A*�/C grades benchmark in

GCSE/GNVQ examinations, 2005

GCSE/GNVQ examinations Girls Boys

Students who achieved 5(�) A*�/C grades at GCSE/GNVQ equivalency

(as a percentage of all students in year group)61.6 51.5

Students who achieved grade C or above (as a percentage of all students in year group)

English 65 50

Mathematics 53 50

Science 51 48

Modern foreign language 42 28

English and mathematics 50 41

English, mathematics, and science 44 37

Mathematics and science 45 42

English, mathematics, science, and a modern foreign language 33 23


220 M. Younger and M. Warrington

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

(grade C or above) in all subjects, including the supposedly ‘‘boy-friendly’’ subjects

mathematics, science and information/communications technology (ICT).

These gender inequalities in achievement have been broadly stable over the last 15

years: in 1992, for example, the gender gap between girls’ and boys’ performances in

GCSE examinations was 10 percentage points (49% of girls and 39% of boys

achieving five or more A�/C grades) and a three year rolling mean figure for England

over the period 1997�/1999 showed that the percentage points gap was virtually

unchanged, with 51.6% of girls and 41.5% of boys having achieved the benchmark

grades (Arnot, Gray, James, & Ruddick, 1998; Younger et al., 2005b, p. 32).

Such an approach to performativity and standards has many inherent dangers. The

emphasis upon the benchmark grades has led, in some English secondary schools, to

an over-concentration of resources on those students whose academic performance

waivers around those benchmarks and the creation of a form of ‘‘educational triage’’

(Gillborn & Youdell, 2000) which risks neglecting other students with lower

predicted achievement levels. In other schools the curriculum has become

unbalanced and distorted as students are entered for a reduced number of subjects

at GCSE, so that they might ‘‘concentrate their efforts’’ on those subjects, sometimes

at GNVQ4 level, where they are perceived as having a greater chance of ‘‘success.’’ In

yet other schools, often in more affluent areas, a high proportion of girls and boys

achieve five or more A*�/C grades at GCSE, but value-added measures suggest that

there is considerable under-achievement (Fitz-Gibbon, 1996; Gray, Goldstein,

Table 2B. Percentage of student entry achieving the 5 A*�/C grades benchmark in GCSE/GNVQ

examinations, 2005

GCSE/GNVQ examinations, 2005

Student entry who achieved grade C or above in each subject (%)

Girls Boys

English 69 54

Mathematics 56 54

Science 56 54

Modern foreign language 65 53

English and mathematics 53 46

English, mathematics, and science 48 43

Mathematics and science 50 48

English, mathematics, science, and a modern foreign language 53 45

ICT (Information technology) 64 56

Design/technology 66 50

Geography 68 61

History 69 63

Music 74 67

Art/design 77 58

Physical education 61 58

Religious education 74 61

Subjects included were taken by at least 25% of year group.


Closing the Gender Gap 221

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

& Thomas, 2003), with students failing to achieve the highest level grades, (A* and A

at GCSE), of which their prior performance suggests they are capable (Warrington &

Younger, 1999). Conversely, in some contexts under-achievement remains unrecog-

nized because a slavish adherence to notions of inherent ability suggests that the

current patterns of achievement of some students cannot be transformed to any real

degree through their schooling; too little is expected of such students, who frequently

include high proportions of boys from some minority ethnic cultures and some more

deprived socio-economic backgrounds (Hart, Dixon, Drummond, & McIntyre,

2004; Younger et al., 2005b).

Whilst accepted in some sectors of government,5 these issues have not been high

profile in the pronouncements of most government ministers or in the media

representation of the debate in England. In both the tabloid press and the

educational press headlines have presented a similar gloss on the issue:

Fantasy football helps schoolboys score at maths. (Observer, January 2000)

Why us boys do worse at school: by Jason James (3 GCSEs). (The Sun, August

2003)

Blunkett targets scourge of lad culture. (Times Educational Supplement, August

2000)

More male teachers needed to help boys. (Times Educational Supplement, September

2000)

Within the educational world in the UK the debate has focused almost exclusively on

devising approaches and strategies which might raise boys’ achievement and reduce

their apparent disadvantage. A plethora of pedagogic texts (Gardner, Grove, &

Sharp, 1999; Noble & Bradford, 2000; Noble, Brown, & Murphy, 2001; Pickering,

1997), a mushrooming of consultancies (Hannan, 1997, 1999; Smith, 1998, 2001),

and a series of reports from the Office for the Inspection of Standards in Education

(OfSTED, 2003a, 2003b) have all pursued the same theme. National gender

initiatives from the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and, interestingly,

from the Department of Health (DoH) have been preoccupied with concerns about

boys’ under-achievement, male values, and male aspirations and goals. Thus the

original tender for a three year research and intervention strategy sponsored by

the DfES in early 2000 was publicized in terms of devising strategies which have the

potential to combat boys’ under-achievement and the work of the National Healthy

School Programme model, whilst emphasizing its concern with school improvement

through developing strategies which ‘‘will directly benefit all the pupils in your care’’

(DfES, 2003, p. 4), was nonetheless publicized as a toolkit for raising boys’

achievement. Similarly, the National Education Breakthrough Programme is an

ongoing partnership between the DfES and the DoH6 which aims to evaluate

whether ‘‘change management methodology’’ which has successfully improved

patient and community services in primary health care in England, can be effective

in transforming standards in the education sector:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Breakthrough’s goal is to raise the level of boys’ achievement within the

participating secondary schools, without reducing that of girls, by changing the

organisational systems of learning and teaching in order to maximize the potential

of all pupils, staff and schools.

(www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/innovationunit/investigation/breakthrough, accessed

November 15, 2005)

Gender Equality: Illusion or reality

The gaze of the media and the preoccupation of government with issues of male

achievement ought not to surprise us, since the whole structure and ethos of the

English educational system have enshrined a preoccupation with boys (Arnot, 2002;

Weiner, Arnot, & David, 1997). Similar concerns have been predominant through-

out many countries of the western world (Arnot, David, & Weiner, 1999; Gill &

Starr, 2000; Johanneson, 2004; Lingard, 2003; Mahony, 2003; Mills, 2003; Titus,

2004; Weaver-Hightower, 2003), and these have been exacerbated as the increasing

demands of a post-industrial economy for a well-educated and skilled workforce

(McDowell, 2003) have exposed the apparently inadequate educational levels of

some students. Indeed, in the UK the scale of the gender gap in achievement in

English has become a particular concern: thus in 2005 one in three boys did not

achieve the expected level in the 2005 National Curriculum tests (compared to one

in five girls) and only 50% of the school population gained a higher level pass (grade

C or above), compared with 65% of girls. Thus, in the words of the Director-General

of the Confederation of British Industry:

The government’s promise (through the White Paper ‘‘Higher Standards, Better

Schools for All’’, of an intensified focus on improving literacy and numeracy is good

news for those getting ready for the world of work and employers alike. Every year,

hundreds of thousands of young people leave education unable to read, write or add

up to the basic levels expected of them by employers. This greatly reduces their

chances in life, risks excluding them from society and means businesses often have

to pick up the pieces. (Jones, D., 2005)

All of this would suggest that the equal opportunities movement of the 1970s and

1980s in England had been remarkably successful in asserting opportunity and

entitlement for girls. At one level, it appears that a National Curriculum for all

students to 16�, an outcome of the 1988 Education Reform Act, had wiped out

gender stereotyping in subject choices (Stables, 1990), that career choices were now

more open (Myers, 2000), and the glass ceiling of occupational opportunity broken

(McDowell, 1997; Walby, 1997), and that teachers were now more alert to the

dangers of boys dominating classroom interactions and spaces (Mahony, 1985;

Stanworth, 1981; Warrington & Younger, 2000). In some respects this is not a

misrepresentation of reality; to some, the portrait of women’s educational achieve-

ment in the West has never been better (Macrae & Maguire, 2000). The evidence of

girls’ achievements during their period of compulsory schooling seems compelling

(see Tables 1 and 2), and this gender disparity is sustained into post-compulsory


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

education (see Figure 1). Indeed, in the 2005 GCE A level examinations7 higher

level grades (grades A�/C) were awarded to 72.4% of girls (270,984 grades),

compared with 66.6% awarded to boys (212,134 grades). In higher education the

evidence is equally impressive: there are higher participation rates for women than

men (37% compared with 30%), 56% of those graduating from university are

women, and of these 58% of female graduates get a first class or upper second class

degree, compared with 51% of men (National Statistics Office, 2005). An analysis of

the highest level of qualifications held reiterates these points (see Table 3); in the

younger age groups a greater proportion of women are more highly qualified than

men, and it is only in women aged 30 and above, and particularly those who left

school before the mid 1980s, where the proportion of unqualified or lower qualified

women is greater than men. Indeed, the changing pattern of women’s qualifications

through time might be seen, in some respects at least, as a microcosm of the

evolution of equal opportunity within schools and education generally.

The historical inequalities between men and women suggest, nonetheless, that

there is still a legacy to be overcome in English society generally. Thus, whilst Figure

2 suggests a narrowing through time of the differential between men’s and women’s

hourly earnings, women in full-time employment in 2003 had median total

individual incomes which were only 80% of those for men (Department of Trade

and Industry, 2005). Although the notion of equal pay for similar work was

enshrined within the Equal Pay Act of 1975, the lack of opportunity and access to

higher level positions has limited the scope of this provision in reality. Thus, in 2004

women held only 4% of company directorships in Great Britain, only 24% of civil

servants at the Senior Civil Service level were women, only 6% of High Court Judges

were women (despite the fact that 20 years previously 33% of all students called to

the Bar were women (Figure 3)), and only 3.3% of women occupied a senior position

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1990

-1

1992

-3

1994

-5

1996

-7

1998

-9

2000

-1

2002

-3

%

males

females

Figure 1. Students achieving two or more GCSE A-levels or equivalent (usually taken at age 18�)

in the UK, 1991�2003 (Social Trends, 2005)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

within the police force, at Inspector rank or above, compared with 8.2% of men

(National Statistics Office, 2005).

In education the data are equally stark. Men remain dominant, both in terms of

membership of the research councils which evaluate and distribute grant allocations

and in terms of those who receive such grants (see Table 4). Although, as Pearson

and Riddell (2004) pointed out, roughly equal proportions of men and women (29%

of men and 27% of women) are successful in their applications for grants to the

Table 3. Highest qualification held, by gender and age, Great Britain, 2003�/2004 (percentages)

Age and

gender

Degree or

equivalent

Higher education

below degree level

GCE A-levels or

equivalent

GCSE grades

A*�/C or

equivalent

Other None

16�/19

Male 28 42 11 17

Female 1 31 45 8 13

20�/24

Male 14 6 38 22 12 7

Female 16 7 35 24 9 8

25�/29

Male 29 8 23 17 14 8

Female 29 9 20 21 12 8

30�/39

Male 22 9 25 19 15 9

Female 20 10 16 29 14 11

40�Male 18 9 31 13 13 16

Female 14 12 13 23 16 22

Source: Social Trends (2005).

Figure 2. Hourly earnings differential, by gender, in Great Britain, 1971�2003 (Office for National

Statistics, 2004)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Economic and Social Research Council (the main research council funding

educational research), two-thirds of the applicants for grants are men. In schools

in England and Wales in 2002, although 56% of secondary teachers were women,

only 31% of headteachers were women. Equally, in primary schools, where only 16%

of the teaching workforce was male, 38% of headteachers were men, and in special

schools and pupil referral units less than one-third of all teachers (32%) were male,

whilst a majority of headteachers (53%) were men (Coleman, 2004; Francis &

Skelton, 2005).

Thus, whilst girls in England appear to be achieving more success at school and

the gender gap appears to have been eliminated and, indeed, reversed, this level of

achievement has not yet translated into the wider society. This evidence cautions us

against assuming that the battle for equality has been won (Aveling, 2002; Gill &

Starr, 2000). Indeed, data from both Australia (Collins, Kenway, & McLeod, 2000;

Table 4. Research councils in the UK: membership and grants

Research council Membership by gender Per cent

female

Recipients of research grants Per

cent female

Biotechnology/biological

sciences

24 20

Engineering/physical

sciences

35 37

Economic/social 12 11

Medical 28 21

Natural environment 19 16

Particle physics/astronomy 9 8

Source: Department of Trade and Industry (2004).

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1982

-3

1984

-5

1986

-7

1988

-9

1990

-1

1992

-3

1994

-5

1996

-7

1998

-9

2000

-1

2002

-3

nu

mb

ers

males

females

all

Figure 3. Students called to the Bar, by gender, England and Wales, 1982�2003 (Social Trends,

2005)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Lingard, 2003) and the UK (Arnot et al., 1999) suggest that the disparity in

workplace rewards between men and women may be increasing rather than

decreasing and that middle class women:

get stuck in middle not executive management . . ., doing the emotional manage-

ment work of a high-risk society, [whilst] middle and upper class males continue to

dominate the high-paying, high-status professional/management positions at the

core of the restructured workplace. (Blackmore, 2001, p. 126)

So much, perhaps, for the success of equal opportunities within schools. Lois Weiss

reiterated the point very starkly:

What exactly does it mean that women and men have virtually closed the gender

gap in educational attainment? Do they obtain equivalent jobs in the paid labour

force? Are women able to negotiate equal labour in the home and family sphere?

Are women’s lives free from the haunting physical abuse that surrounds us now? . . .It is important that we do not assume that this clsoing [of the educational gap]

alone will translate into broader egalitarian outcomes. (Weiss, 2003, p. 120)

Revisiting Gender Equity Issues in English Secondary Schools

It might be argued that some of the persistent gender inequalities in English society

which we have outlined above simply reflect an inevitable time lag as the educational

achievements of girls in school work through into their enhanced positions in the

labour force. There is some merit in this argument, although to assume it is simply a

case of ‘‘being patient’’ (Howard, 2005) is both demeaning and complacent. Indeed,

a closer analysis of girls’ achievements in English secondary schools through time

would challenge the supposition that the superior performances of girls is a recent

phenomenon (Arnot, David, & Weiner, 1996, 1999; Cohen, 1996, 1998; Gallagher,

1997).

Revisiting the gender equity scene in English secondary schools raises a number of

disturbing issues. Both Warrington and Younger (2000) and Francis and Skelton

(2005) chronicled some of these concerns:

. fewer girls embracing the study of mathematics and science in the post-

compulsory AS and A2 examinations taken at 18� despite their (at least)

equality of performance with boys at GCSE;

. schools entering girls for lower tier, less demanding papers in technical and

scientific subjects at GCSE, and thereby narrowing subsequent choice, despite

evidence of superior prior achievements by girls in the lower school at 14�;

. the persistence of traditionally gendered career paths;

. male-dominated classroom environments where the disordered behaviour of a

limited number of boys significantly affects the quality of the learning

environment for girls and other boys;

. teacher�/student dynamics in classrooms which are dominated by boys;


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

. teachers’ perceptions and expectations that girls will learn whatever, whilst boys

need more challenging and structured learning activities and are more rewarding

and interesting than girls to teach.

Equally, the continuing constructions of the debate around boys’ learning needs

means that those of girls frequently go unrecognized, simply because girls are often

perceived as more cooperative, less insistent, more quietly diligent, and less

intolerant of poor teaching (Jones, S., 2005). Frequently, too, off-task behaviour

of such girls is subtle and disguised, carefully cloaked under a mask of normal

working and participation in learning, and far less likely to be confrontational. The

underachieving girl remains a shadowy figure, rendered invisible and rarely

challenged in terms of work level or achievement (Jones, S., 2005). These concerns

were reiterated in a 2004 speech to the Fawcett Society in London on International

Women’s Day, when Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools highlighted the

dangers of underestimating the number of girls who do not reach their full potential:

Some girls’ self-esteem is affected from an early age. Others suffer problems morequietly than boys and so don’t receive help and support. Boys are encouraged to berougher, tougher and stand up for themselves: behaviour which is often discouragedin girls. Even careers choices differ. More girls choose to study arts and humanities,so are unable to benefit from more lucrative science and technological careers. Allof these areas of concern must be addressed. (Bell, 2004)

Another dimension of this concern is that in some schools teachers do not always

recognize the reality of the challenges that are before them. Jones and Myhill (2004)

Table 5. Student performance at Key Stage 4. Per cent students entered who achieved 5(�) A*�/C

GCSE grades or equivalent, 2005, by ethnicity and eligibility for free school meals

Girls Boys National entry (%)

White 57 47 83

Mixed 54 45 3

Asian

Indian 72 62 2

Pakistani 52 39 3

Bangladeshi 55 41 1

Black

Caribbean 44 27 1

African 49 37 2

Chinese 79 70 0.3

All 57 47 95.3

Other 4.7

Not eligible for free school meals 61 51 86

Eligible for free school meals 30 22 14



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

argued, for example, that teachers are predisposed to see boys rather than girls as

underachievers, despite the existence of an increasing number of disengaged girls in

high school. Such girls were ‘‘stroppy, uncooperative, monosyllabic girls who could

not be described as passive or lacking in confidence . . . closer to the picture that

teachers painted of underachieving boys, being in various degrees confrontational,

disruptive and challenging of the school ethos’’ (Jones & Myhill, 2004, p. 541). At its

extreme, these behaviours find their expression in the ladette culture so negatively

reviewed in the British media (Jackson, 2004), in terms of some girls’ adoption of a

hedonistic, binge drinking and drugs lifestyle, behaviours which transgress normative

femininity and represent a threat to the prevailing gender order (Jackson & Tinkler,

2005).

Whether discussing the achievement of girls or boys, then, the emphasis needs to

be placed on diversity and heterogeneity. Social class impinges centrally upon such

discussions, as do issues of sexuality and ethnicity (David, 2003; Walkerdine, 2003).

Table 6. Student performance at Key Stage 4. Per cent students achieving 5(�) A*�/C GCSE

grades or equivalent, 2005

Girls Boys Students Gender gap (%)

England average 61.6 51.5 56.5 10.1

Local Authorities with highest percentages of students achieving 5(�) A*�/C GCSE/GNVQ passes

1 Trafford 74.4 65.4 69.9 9.0

2 Redbridge 72.4 66.2 69.3 6.2

3 Sutton 70.6 64.1 67.5 6.5

4 Buckinghamshire 72.5 62.1 67.3 10.4

5 Kingston-upon-Thames 74.4 58.5 66.8 15.9

6 Solihull 66.9 61.1 63.9 5.8

7 Poole 67.4 59.8 63.5 7.6

8 Bath/North Somerset 67.1 59.6 63.4 7.5

9 Bromley 64.6 62.2 63.4 2.4

10 Shropshire 69.3 57.5 62.9 11.8

Local Authorities with lowest percentages of students achieving 5(�) A*�/C GCSE/GNVQ passes

1 Bristol 40.4 32.1 36.1 8.3

2 Blackpool 47.8 32.6 40.0 15.2

3 Nottingham 42.9 37.3 40.1 5.6

4 Northeast Lincolnshire 45.1 37.8 41.5 7.3

5 Sandwell 46.8 38.6 42.5 8.2

6 Kingston-upon-Hull 49.3 37.4 43.0 11.9

7� Knowsley 49.9 36.9 43.1 13.0

7� Manchester 49.3 36.6 43.1 12.7

7� Islington 44.8 41.4 43.1 3.4

10 Southwark 46.0 41.5 43.8 4.5

Students on roll at end of academic year in state-maintained schools.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Working class girls continue to underachieve in some schools, compared with middle

class boys and girls (Francis & Skelton, 2005). Equally, whilst girls of Chinese and

Indian heritage do significantly better than white girls at the end of their compulsory

schooling, girls of black Caribbean, African and Pakistani heritage do significantly

less well than white girls (see Table 5). Equally, twice as many girls not entitled to

free school meals gain the benchmark grades at GCSE than those who are entitled to

free school meals,8 perhaps lending some support to the argument that the

educational needs of girls from working class backgrounds often remain unrecog-

nized in some schools (Plummer, 2000). The corresponding data for boys’

achievements (see Table 5) confirms the need to challenge essentialist constructions

of masculinity, as of femininity.

An analysis of the spatial aspects of the gender gap in England at secondary level

(see Table 6) reiterates this need to emphasize diversity rather than uniformity. It has

long been recognized that schools’ results partly reflect their location and the

affluence of the communities they serve (Warrington, 2005). Thus, schools in

suburban areas, towards the edge of cities, have consistently achieved higher results

than those in inner cities and schools in affluent rural areas have normally achieved

higher results than those in more deprived areas of the country. Although Warrington

and Younger, with Bearne (2006) analysed primary school patterns in spatial terms,

there is otherwise little spatial examination of the scale of the gender gap. Such an

analysis of the results at secondary school level, at the local authority scale, reveals

the nonsense of constructing a debate about boys’ ‘‘under-achievement’’ within the

terms of ‘‘reducing the gender gap.’’ Thus, in 2005 there were, within the ten local

authorities in England with the highest level of achievement at GCSE, three local

authorities where the gender gap was greater than the national average, most notably

in Kingston-upon-Thames (on the southern edge of the London metropolitan area),

where gender inequalities at this level between boys and girls were most sharp

(15.9%). At the same time, in four of these highest achieving local authorities both

girls and boys achieved at levels significantly above the national averages. Equally, the

ten local authorities where achievement levels were lowest included those where there

were high levels of gender inequality (at one extreme, Blackpool, a coastal resort in

northwest England, where the gender gap in 2005 was 15.2% in favour of girls), as

well as six local authorities where gender gaps were below national average levels.

Introducing a spatial component therefore reinforces the need to move beyond an

analysis simply in terms of ‘‘boys’’ and ‘‘girls’’ and reiterates the point that it is not

the scale of the gender gap which is the predominant issue, but rather the level of

achievement. The nature of the gender gap in Islington, for example, reflected a

lower level of performance by girls than by boys, compared with the national

averages, whereas in Blackpool the converse was true. Similarly, at the other extreme

it was the exceptional performance of girls in Kingston-upon-Thames which

exacerbated the gender gap, and the stronger performance of boys in Bromley,

where the small gender gap reflected the fact that the level of girls’ performance was

only slightly above the national average. A concentration on notions of gender equity,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

and reducing the gender gap, can distract the debate from more substantive issues, of

how to raise the achievements of both girls and boys within inclusive contexts.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The predominant strategies adopted by secondary schools in England since the early

1990s to address boys’ ‘‘under-achievement’’ have been framed within recuperative

masculinity approaches (Bleach, 1998; Hannan, 1999; Pickering, 1997; Schagen,

Kendall, & Sharp, 2002). Such approaches have treated boys as though they

constituted a single homogeneous, undifferentiated, disadvantaged group (Martino

& Berrill, 2003; Gill & Starr, 2000), ignoring the complexities presented by multiple

forms of masculinity (Francis & Skelton, 2005; Jackson, 2002; Weiss, 2003) and

assuming a normative masculinity (Kehler & Gregg, 2005) which can be engaged

with through standard, stereotyped approaches. There is an emphasis, too, within

such an approach on the quick fix and the search for immediate, short-term solutions

(Frank, Kehler, Lovell, & Davison, 2003; Kehler & Gregg, 2005). This was best

epitomized in the UK context through the work of the Breakthrough Programme,

whose original ‘‘toolkit’’ offered schools 124 exemplars of change strategies linked to

aspects of schooling such as leadership and environment, mentoring, and target-

setting, and apparently ‘‘boy-friendly’’ pedagogic strategies emphasizing structure,

pace, competition, and interaction. Participating schools undertook to identify,

implement, and monitor one or more change strategies, in terms of their impact,

within monthly ‘‘plan do study act’’ (PDSA) cycles, on the attainment, motivation

and attendance of a targeted cohort of under-achieving boys (National Primary Care

Development Team /DfES, 2003).

Given the climate of moral panic and a prevailing ethos of accountability and

performativity, such approaches are hardly surprising, but there is little independent

evidence to support the claims of their protagonists (as evident in the critiques

offered by Francis & Skelton, 2005; Younger et al., 2005b). Not surprisingly, male

recuperative approaches have not been particularly effective in identifying and

releasing the potential of some girls, as indicated above. Equally, these approaches

have not been particularly effective with many boys, for although we recognize that

the academic achievements of successive national cohorts of boys and girls have

improved, attempts to narrow the gender gap, whether at the ages of 14 or 16, have

proved unsuccessful. An in-depth analysis of the achievement scene in English

secondary schools suggests, therefore, that more sophisticated and nuanced policies

and practices are needed if issues of ‘‘under-achievement’’ are to be successfully

addressed (Epstein, Elwood, Hey, & Maw, 1998; Mahony, 2003; Francis & Skelton,

2005; Younger & Warrington, with Gray, Rudduck, Bearne, Kershner, & Bricheno,

2005a; Younger et al., 2005b).

Research we have carried out within English secondary schools over the last ten

years (Warrington & Younger, 1999; Younger & Warrington, 1996; Younger et al.,

2005a), in both comprehensive and selective schools and in markedly different socio-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

economic contexts, suggests that such policies and practices have a number of

distinctive characteristics. Crucially, the most effective strategies have been

formulated within a gender equity context, emphasizing issues of inclusiveness and

appropriateness for boys and girls and incorporating notions of differences within the

categories ‘‘boy’’ and ‘‘girl.’’ Secondary schools working within this framework have

placed the centrality of emphasis on maximizing achievement for all students, on

heterogeneity and diversity of gender constructions, on developing approaches

within a gender-relational context, challenging rather than reinforcing gendered

learning identities. In essence, the identification of this context is hardly surprising

because, as Francis and Skelton (2005) pointed out, ‘‘the only way to influence

pupils’ gendered learning identities is through actively deconstructing traditional

stereotypes’’ (p. 149), and a recent large-scale study of strategies used in secondary

schools in England ‘‘has shown conclusively that it is in schools where gender

constructions are less accentuated that boys tend to produce higher attainment’’ (p.

149).

In our experience, an effective gender-relational policy will be positioned within a

particular ethos and culture.

. Senior management within the school will identify actively with it and promote

it, rather than permissively enabling it.

. It will have emerged through consultation, discussion and, negotiation with all

categories of staff within the school*/teaching assistants, administrative staff and

parent helpers as well as by subject teachers and senior managers*/so that its

credibility will be recognized and its aims accepted as legitimate.

. Active and ongoing dialogue with the community served by the school (students,

parents, carers, community leaders, the business community) will have

established the potential of the policy to help transform achievement and, if

appropriate, to raise entrenched aspirations.

. It will embrace broader concepts of achievement, in terms of service within the

wider community and the fields of music, drama, and sport (for example), as well

as academic achievement.

. It will span the medium-term as well as the short-term and incorporate a variety

of intervention strategies, integrated into a holistic approach which tackles

achievement issues for all students.

We outline below, then, two different intervention strategies implemented and

evaluated in groups of secondary schools in England which give context to these

characteristics of gender-relational policies.

A Concern with the Individual

The current focus within English education on standards and the comparative

performance of schools has meant that a great deal of attention has been focused on

the academic achievement of each individual student, and how it contributes to the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

whole and impinges on a school’s performance within national league tables. Target-

setting and mentoring have been high profile within these concerns. As currently

implemented in a number of English secondary schools, however, target-setting and

mentoring is beset with dangers, of focusing resources on a very narrow range of

students (usually predominantly boys) whose achievements impact significantly on

schools’ attainment profiles and of ignoring the rationale underpinning efforts to

raise achievement (Colley, 2003; Gillborn & Youdell, 2000; Younger et al., 2005b).

Equally, however, framed within a gender-relational policy, mentoring and target-

setting can develop a very real sense of caring and belonging, so that all students,

regardless of ability, gender, or potential achievement, appreciate that their teachers

identify with their individual aspirations and ‘‘baggage.’’ Such an approach is

demanding to implement: target-setting in this context needs to be structured

around achievement data which are reliable, detailed, and regularly updated. It also

needs to incorporate data which are not just related historically to the school’s

immediate past, but might challenge both value-added data and entrenched staff

expectations about the (low) capabilities of the students they teach. In this respect,

target-setting relates to challenging expectations held at the school and community

levels, opening up visions of what is possible in a post-Fordist economy for students

in communities where second and third generation unemployment has been endemic

and changing the aspirations of students, their parents and carers, and those who

teach in such schools.

Mentoring in turn will only be effective if it is built on a mutuality of trust, so that

students have the right to expect their mentors to act on their behalf in negotiations

with their subject teachers, and mentors can legitimately expect students to fulfil

their part of the contract. Similarly, mentoring needs to embrace a delicate mix of

collaboration and assertion, so that mentors not only support but demand, enabling

students to meet academic targets which they need, and indeed often want to, meet

so as to further their own aspirations, whilst at the same time protecting their own

sense of self-image and their own construction of masculinity or femininity.

Developed within a gender-relational context, such an approach to target-setting

and mentoring has been shown to transform the expectations of students in some

schools, allowing them to engage in academic study without endangering their own

social standing in the peer group, and in so doing, support students’ sense of

membership of the school and develop their own sense of agency and increasing

responsibility for their own learning. This is best summarized, perhaps, in the words

of two 17-year-old students:

I got a sense of responsibility from my mentor. He indicated what was possible, he

negotiated with teachers for me, but I had to do it in the end, not him. I felt I

developed a sense of commitment to him and the school, and to myself as I went

along. (Kayleigh)

He gave me a whole sense of challenge and changed my outlook. He was a hugely

encouraging presence during year 11. If he hadn’t been there, I wouldn’t be here [in

a 16�/19 college] now. I’ll be the first one in my family to go to uni. (Rob)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

A Concern with Single-sex Classes

Blunkett asks research team to find out if single-sex classes will help under-

achieving boys. (Cassidy, 2000)

So ran a headline in one of the ‘‘quality’’ English dailies in August 2000. Subsequent

discussions with DfES officials working for the Secretary of State for Education

(David Blunkett) suggested that he saw single-sex classes as an initiative which could

be quickly and effectively implemented to raise boys’ achievement levels. Five years

later the ‘‘research team’’ commissioned by the DfES reported, not only on single-

sex teaching but on a whole series of intervention strategies which had been devised,

refined, monitored, and evaluated in a wide range of secondary schools in different

parts of England. Predictably, national and international media highlighted the

accessible and simpler messages, almost universally in terms of single-sex teaching:

Boys-only classes will improve lagging results. (The Guardian, London, 30 May

2005)

Boys perform better in single-sex classes. (New Zealand Herald, 30 May 2005)

Letting them go their separate ways. (Canadian Globe & Mail, 12 March 2005)

Would Harry have done better in all-boys class? (Singapore Electric News, 8

September 2000)

Closer reading of the DfES research report (Younger et al., 2005a) and of other

research studies conducted in the UK (Jackson, 1999; Sukhnandan, Lee, & Kelleher,

2000; Warrington & Younger, 2001, 2003; Younger and Warrington, 2002), in

Australia (Kenway & Willis, withBlackmore & Rennie, 1998; Martino & Meyenn,

2002; Mills, 2003; Martino, Mills, & Lingard, 2005; Mulholland, Hansen, &

Kaminski, 2004) and in the USA (American Association of University Women

Educational Foundation, 1998; Herr & Arms, 2004) reveal that the debate about

single-sex teaching is much more complex than reported here and that to regard such

classes as a panacea for issues of boys’ ‘‘under-achievement’’ is overtly simplistic and

naı̈ve. It is the deceptive simplicity of the approach, however, which makes it so

attractive, especially to those working from the context of boys as the new

disadvantaged. Indeed, our own work (Younger & Warrington, 2002; Warrington

& Younger, 2003; Younger et al., 2005b) has revealed a number of advantages when

single-sex classes have been implemented in particular circumstances, in some

schools.

. There was a positive impact on achievement levels in GCSE examinations (taken

at 16�), for both boys and girls, particularly in English and French.

. Students suggested that single-sex classes aided their concentration and helped

them to feel more confident about their work.

. Students felt that there was a better atmosphere for learning, because they could

contribute more openly, without embarrassment, offering answers and asking

questions more readily when the other sex was not present.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

. Girls and boys wrote of more informal relationships in single-sex classrooms,

with teachers less stressed by off-task behaviour and able to teach more

effectively.

Equally, however, in other circumstances, in other schools single-sex classes have

been ineffective, neither raising achievement nor impacting positively upon motiva-

tion or behaviour. In such contexts, as we have witnessed, both ‘‘the morale of

teachers and the learning of pupils can deteriorate rapidly’’ (Younger et al., 2005b, p.

132) as negative behaviour becomes the norm.

It is unlikely, then, that single-sex classes will impact positively when implemented

in isolation and in a male recuperative context. Single-sex classes will only be

effective, in our experience, when located within a gender-relational context, where

they are supported and promoted by senior managers, where their rationale is

articulated to and identified with by students and their parents/carers, and where

they are located within a holistic approach to achievement which values individuals of

themselves. Crucially, single-sex classes have been most successful where they have

addressed the needs of girls and boys as individuals, rather than assuming an

essentialist gender-specific pedagogy for boys which differs from that devised for

girls. Inevitably, some single-sex classes (particularly all-boy classes) can present

more challenging and confrontational behaviour, and appropriate pedagogic

strategies are needed to engage and motivate students in such contexts (Younger

et al., 2005a, p. 87). Whilst these relate to the structure and pace of lessons, vibrant

and lively teacher�/student interactions involving strategies such as role play, hot

seating, and value/opinion walk continuums, and the use of proactive and assertive

approaches, these strategies are not gender-specific, but rather characteristic of

quality teaching for all.

Essentially, such teaching involves the establishment of respectful pedagogies in

classrooms (Martino & Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2003), for all girls and boys, rather than

being founded upon ill-conceived gender stereotypes. In such a context teachers’

threshold knowledge about gender has been raised and research knowledge about the

social construction of gender has been used to open up pedagogy (Martino et al.,

2005). Central to the successful implementation of single-sex classes has been the

establishment of a common ethos amongst teachers and students, establishing a

sense of togetherness and common purpose, sustaining the credibility of the teaching

and learning process through the use of humour and informal references to popular

culture, fashion, and sport. This establishment of a collaborative classroom atmo-

sphere, however, must be balanced by a mutuality of understanding, with an

emphasis on high expectations of behaviour, work, and commitment, an acceptance

that ‘‘disruptive behaviour or failure to complete work, especially homework and

coursework, would not be tolerated’’ (Younger et al., 2005b, p. 133). Single-sex

classrooms where teaching is most effective are sites of collaboration and

encouragement, on the one hand, but also of persuasion and requirement, on the

other. Carefully implemented within this holistic, inclusive ethos, single-sex teaching

can contribute to the raising of achievement levels of boys and girls; carelessly


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

implemented, such teaching can exacerbate school disenchantment and disengage-

ment and contribute to under-achievement of girls and boys.

Conclusion: Where next in the gender equity debate?

Those of us working with teachers in English secondary schools on issues of raising

boys’ achievement are continually presented with a series of issues, dilemmas, and

opportunities. There is the persistent danger of becoming insiders (Warrington &

Younger, 2006), of being sucked into government agendas and used out of context to

give authenticity and credibility to policies and practices (Gee, Hull, & Lankshear,

1996; Mahony, 2003). Carefully devised, monitored, and evaluated strategies can be

distorted, as government ministers and media engage in the search for simple causes

and straightforward answers to issues of boys’ underachievement (Wilson, 2005).

The very process of engaging in the debate can give a higher profile to that debate

and exacerbate the risk of misrepresentation and over-simplification (Dillabough,

2001).

At the same time, there are fundamental issues which remain about gender equity

in England, as in many countries, and these remain pressing for many women and

some men. It has been important, therefore, not to stand on the sidelines, despairing

as the debate about policy and practice has been captured by those who advocate

male recuperative responses, but to engage critically with the debate wherever and

whenever it has been promulgated. To refrain from engagement would have allowed

free rein to simplistic notions of boy-friendly pedagogies, differential curricula and

reading matter, boy�/girl seating plans, learning styles differentiated by gender,

mentoring by macho sportsmen, and the like, approaches which retain attractiveness

because of their very simplicity (Lingard & Douglas, 1999). It would have intensified

the risks of losing the gender equity gains for girls which have been achieved over the

last 20 years (Mills, 2003) and of exacerbating the dangers of ‘‘reverting to an earlier

style of essentialist reactionary thinking’’ (Gill & Starr, 2000, p. 332).

Our own involvement with the gender agenda in English secondary schools

(Warrington et al., 2006; Younger et al., 2005b) has convinced us that an essentialist

interpretation of the debate does no one any favours and we hope that our

involvement, as with the work of Collins and co-workers in Australia, ‘‘will raise

the awareness amongst policy makers at least of the need to take a ‘which girls’ and

‘which boys’ approach to academic performance as a basis for policy interventions’’

(Lingard, 2003, p. 52). The need to develop approaches which avoid a backlash

against girls and feminists, which are holistic and sustainable with medium-term

rather than short-term objectives, and which impact upon issues of boys’ and girls’

behaviour, relationships, and aspirations, has been fundamental to what we have

attempted to achieve. In developing our work with schools our aim has been to

develop intervention strategies within a gender-relational context, to enable girls and

boys to develop a sense of agency which offers choice and confers responsibility and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

which gives them the opportunity to develop a sense of membership of and belonging

to school and community.

So where next? The context we have outlined here, within which secondary

schools in England operate, suggests that many challenges exist which remain

unresolved. The continuing existence of extreme spatial disparities in educational

opportunity, the less visible disadvantage which continues to exist in different

contexts for specific groups of girls, and the overriding dominance of ethnicity and

social class inequalities in schooling, suggest that gender equity has hardly been

achieved in English secondary schools. Central to this is the need to raise

expectations, of teachers, students, parents, and communities, to challenge 20th

century peer group traditional aspirations, to enable all secondary schools to engage

fully with the mantra of equality of opportunity for all, regardless of place, creed,

ethnicity, class, and gender, in this opening decade of the new century.

Notes

1. National Curriculum tests are taken in the three core subjects of English, mathematics, and

science by all students in state-maintained schools in England at the end of the school year

when they have reached the age of 14. Students’ performance is graded between levels 2

(low) and 7 (8 for mathematics). Level 5 is the ‘‘expected’’ level achieved by an ‘‘average’’

student. In the non-core subjects teacher assessments are used rather than tests.

2. General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations, or their vocational

equivalent General National Vocational Qualifications (GNVQ), are taken by students at the

end of the compulsory stage of education (in the school year when students reach the age of

16). They are graded on a nine point scale (A*�/U, where A* is the highest grade). Although

a ‘‘pass�/fail’’ grading system does not officially apply, grades A*�/C have become

conventionally regarded as ‘‘higher level’’ pass grades and government benchmarks are

expressed in terms of the proportion of students achieving five or more of these higher level,

A*�/C grade passes.

3. Key Stage 3 covers that phase of secondary schooling in England when children are aged

11�/14 years.

4. It has become common practice in some schools for students to be entered for a GNVQ

examination, for example in ICT, which, if passed, is credited as the equivalent of four grade

C passes at GCSE. Thus a student might follow a very narrow curriculum, consisting

perhaps of the three core subjects at GCSE, together with a GNVQ ICT course, and a

limited range of GCSE subjects (typically art, drama, or physical education) in which they

are perceived as having more aptitude. In some schools a significant number of students

(usually more boys than girls) achieve the 5A*�/C benchmark in this way, but in reality have a

very narrowly based education in the last two years of their secondary schooling.

5. The current Gender and Achievement web site of the DfES in the UK, for example, asserts

that government is committed to raising the performance of all underachieving pupils, both

boys and girls, and that, whilst gender is one of the key factors affecting educational

performance, it affects different sub-groups of boys and girls in different ways.

6. This partnership is currently being developed between the DfES Innovation Unit and the

National Primary Care Development Team (NPDT). For a number of years the NPDT has

used its change management methodology very successfully in primary health care to

improve patient and community services. The DfES Innovation Unit is now working with


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

the NPDT to evaluate the effectiveness of this methodology in secondary schools,

particularly in the context of raising boys’ achievement.

7. Advanced level examinations are normally taken by students at the age of 18, prior to

university/college entry.

8. In England the number of students eligible for free school meals is often quoted by the DfES

as a surrogate indicator of social class, although the index has many shortcomings.

References

American Association of University Women Educational Foundation (AAUWEF). (1998).

Separated by sex: A critical look at single sex education for girls. Washington, DC: AAUWEF.

Arnot, M. (2002). Reproducing gender? Essays on educational theory and feminist politics. London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Arnot, M., David, M., & Weiner, G. (1996). Educational reforms and gender equality in schools.

Manchester, UK: Equal Opportunities Commission.

Arnot, M., David, M., & Weiner, G. (1999). Closing the gender gap: Postwar education and social

change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Arnot, M., Gray, J., James, M., & Rudduck, J. (1998). Recent research on gender and educational

performance. London: OfSTED.

Arnot, M., & Miles, P. (2005). A reconstruction of the gender agenda: The contradictory gender

dimensions in New Labour’s educational and economic policy. Oxford Review of Education,

31(1), 73�/189.

Aveling, N. (2002). ‘Having it all’ and the discourse of equal opportunity: Reflections on choice

and changing perceptions. Gender & Education, 14(3), 265�/280.

Bell, D. (2004). The achievement of girls. Speech to the Fawcett Society, London, March 8.

Blackmore, J. (2001). Achieving more in education but earning less in work: Girls, boys and gender

equality in schooling. Discourse, 22(2), 123�/129.

Bleach, K. (1998). Raising boys’ achievement in schools. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham Books.

Boys perform better in single-sex classes. (2005, May 30). New Zealand Herald, p. 8.

Cassidy, S. (2000, August 25). Blunkett targets scourge of lad culture. Times Educational

Supplement, p. 6.

Cohen, M. (1996). Is there space for the achieving girl? In P. Murphy, & C. Gipps (Eds.), Equity in

the classroom: Towards effective pedagogy for girls and boys (pp. 124�/135). London: Falmer

Press.

Cohen, M. (1998). ‘A habit of healthy idleness’: Boys’ underachievement in historical perspective.

In D. Epstein, J. Elwood, V. Hey, & J. Maw (Eds.), Failing boys? Issues in gender and

achievement (pp. 19�/34). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Coleman, M. (2004). Gender and headship in the twenty-first century. Nottingham, UK: National

College of School Leadership.

Colley, H. (2003). Mentoring for social inclusion: A critical approach to nurturing mentor relationships.

London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Collins, C., Kenway, J., & McLeod, J. (2000). Factors influencing the educational performance of males

and females in school and their initial destinations after school. Adelaide, Australia: Deakin

University.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2003). Using the national healthy school standard to

raise boys’ achievement. London: DoH/DfES.

Department of Trade and Industry. (2005). Women at the top. London: Women and Equality Unit.

Retrieved November 15, 2005, from www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/index.htm.

David, M. (2003). Personal and political. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Dillabough, J.-A. (2001). Gender theory and research in education: Modernist traditions and

emerging contemporary themes. In B. Francis, & C. Skelton (Eds.), Investigating gender:

Contemporary perspectives in education (pp. 11�/26). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Epstein, D., Elwood., J., Hey, V., & Maw, J. (1998). Failing boys? Issues in gender and achievement.

Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. (1996). Monitoring educational indicators quality and effectiveness. London:

Cassell.

Francis, B., & Skelton, C. (2005). Reassessing gender and achievement: Questioning contemporary key

debates. London: Routledge.

Frank, B., Kehler, M., Lovell, T., & Davison, K. (2003). A tangle of trouble: Boys, masculinity and

schooling*/Future directions. Educational Review, 55(2), 119�/133.

Gallagher, A. M. (1997). Educational achievement and gender: A review of research evidence on the

apparent under-achievement of boys, Research Report no. 6. Belfast: Department of Education,

Northern Ireland.

Gardner, C., Grove, J., & Sharp, D. (1999). Solihull boys achievement. Solihull, UK: Solihull

Metropolitan Borough Council.

Gee, J. P., Hull, G., & Lankshear, C. (1996). The new work order: Behind the language of the new

capitalism. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Gill, J., & Starr, K. (2000). Sauce for the goose? Deconstructing the boys-in-education push.

Discourse, 21(3), 323�/333.

Gillborn, D., & Youdell, D. (2000). Rationing education: Policy, practice, reform and equity.


Gray, J., Goldstein, H., & Thomas, S. (2003). Of trends and trajectories: Searching for patterns in

school improvement. British Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 83�/88.

Hannan, G. (1997). The gender game and how to win it. London: G. Hannan.

Hannan, G. (1999). Improving boys’ performance. London: Folens.

Hart, S., Dixon, A., Drummond, M. J., & McIntyre, D. (2004). Learning without limits.

Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Herr, K., & Arms, E. (2004). Accountability and single-sex schooling: A collision of reform

agendas. American Educational research Journal, 41(3), 527�/555.

Howard, S. (2005, November 27). Women are on the way up: Just be patient. The Sunday Times,

p. 8.

Jackson, C. (1999). Underachieving boys? Some points for consideration. Curriculum, 20(2),

80�/85.

Jackson, C. (2002). Laddishness’ as a self-worth protection strategy. Gender and Education, 14(1),

37�/51.

Jackson, C. (2004). ‘Wild’ girls? An exploration of ‘ladette’ cultures in secondary schools. Paper

presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference. Manchester, UK.

Jackson, C., & Tinkler, P. (2005). ‘Ladettes’ and ‘modern girls’: Girls behaving badly? So what! Paper

presented at the Gender and Education International Conference: Gender, Power and

Difference, Cardiff, UK.

James, J. (2003, August 23). Why us boys do worse at school. The Sun, p. 8.

Johannesson, I. A. (2004). To teach boys and girls: A pro-feminist perspective on the boys’ debate

in Iceland. Educational Review, 56(1), 33�/42.

Jones, D. (2005, October, 25). CBI reaction to Schools’ White Paper, CBI Press Release. London:

CBI.

Jones, S. (2005). The invisibility of the underachieving girl. International Journal of Inclusive

Education, 9(3), 269�/286.

Jones, S., & Myhill, D. (2004). Seeing things differently: Teachers’ constructions of under-

achievement. Gender and Education, 16(4), 531�/546.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Kehler, M., & Gregg, C. (2005). Reading masculinities: Exploring the socially literate practices of

high school young men. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(4), 351�/370.

Kenway, J., & Willis, S., with Blackmore, J., & Rennie, L. (1998). Answering back: Girls, boys and

feminism in school. London: Routledge.

Lingard, B. (2003). Where to in gender policy after recuperative masculinity politics? Journal of

Inclusive Education, 7(1), 33�/56.

Lingard, B., & Douglas, P. (1999). Men engaging feminisms: Pro-feminism, backlashes and schooling.


Macrae, S., & Maguire, M. (2000). All change, no change: Gendered regimes in the post-sixteen

setting. In J. Salisbury, & S. Riddell (Eds.), Gender policy and educational change (pp.

169�/188). London: Routledge.

Mahony, P. (1985). Schools for the boys? Co-education Reassessed. London: Hutchinson.

Mahony, P. (2003). Recapturing imaginations and the gender agenda: Reflections on a progressive

challenge from an English perspective. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 7(1),

75�/81.

Mausell, W. (2000, September 1). More male teachers needed to help boys. Times Educational

Supplement, p. 10.

Martino, W., & Berrill, D. (2003). Boys, schooling & masculinities: Interrogating the ‘right’ ways to

educate boys. Educational Review, 55(2), 99�/117.

Martino, W., & Meyenn, B. (2002). ‘War, guns and cool, tough things’: Interrogating single-sex

classes as a strategy for engaging boys in English. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(3),

302�/324.

Martino, W., Mills, M., & Lingard, B. (2005). Interrogating single-sex classes as a strategy for

addressing boys’ educational and social needs. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2), 237�/254.

Martino, W., & Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. (2003). So what’s a boy? Addressing issues of masculinity and

schooling. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

McDowell, L. (1997). Capital culture: Gender at work in the city. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

McDowell, L. (2003). Redundant masculinities?. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Mills, M. (2003). Shaping the boys’ agenda: The backlash blockbusters. Journal of Inclusive

Education, 7(1), 57�/73.

Mulholland, J., Hansen, P., & Kaminski, E. (2004). Do single-sex classrooms in coeducational

settings address boys’ underachievement? An Australian study. Educational Studies, 30(1),

19�/32.

Myers, K. (2000). Whatever happened to equal opportunities in schools? Gender equality initiatives in

education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

National Primary Care Development Team (NPDT)/Department for Education and Skills

(DfES). (2003). National education breakthrough programme for raising boys, achievement in

secondary schools. London: DfES Innovation Unit/National Primary Care Development

Team.

National Statistics Office. (2005). Social trends, 35. London: HMSO.

Noble, C., & Bradford, W. (2000). Getting it right for boys . . . and girls. London: Routledge.

Noble, C., Brown, J., & Murphy, J. (2001). How to raise boys’ achievement. London: David Fulton.

Office for National Statistics (2004). Social trends, 2004. London: ONS.

Office for National Statistics (2005). Social trends, 2005. London: ONS.

Office for Standards in Education (OfSTED) (2003a). Boys’ achievement in secondary schools.

London: OfSTED Publications.

Office for Standards in Education (OfSTED) (2003b). Yes he can*/schools where boys write well.

London: OfSTED Publications.

Pearson, C., & Riddell, S. (2004). Mainstreaming equality in research. London: Department of

Trade and Industry Women and Equality Unit.

Pickering, J. (1997). Raising boys, achievement. Stafford, UK: Network Educational Press.

Plummer, G. (2000). Failing working-class girls. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham Books.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Schagen, I., Kendall, L., & Sharp, C. (2002). Measuring the success of ‘playing for success’.

Educational Research, 44(3), 255�/267.

Singh, S. (2005, September 30). Would Harry have done better in all-boys class? Singapore Electric

News. Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://newspaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/.

Smith, A. (1998). Accelerated learning in practice: Brain-based methods for accelerating motivation and

achievement. Stafford, UK: Network Educational Press.

Smith, A. (2001). What the most recent brain research tells us about learning. In F. Banks, & A.

Shelton Mayes (Eds.), Early professional development for teachers (pp. 106�/132). London:

David Fulton.

Stables, A. (1990). Differences between pupils from mixed and single-sex schools in their

enjoyment of school subjects and in their attitudes to science and to school. Educational

Review, 42(3), 221�/230.

Stanworth, M. (1981). Girls and schooling: a study of sexual inequalities in the classroom. London:

Hutchinson.

Sukhnandan, L., Lee, B., & Kelleher, S. (2000). An investigation into gender differences and

achievement: Phase 2: School and classroom strategies. Slough, UK: National Foundation for

Educational Research.

Taylor, M. (2005, May 30) Boys-only classes will improve lagging results. The Guardian, p. 6.

Titus, J. (2004). Boy trouble: Rhetorical framing of boys’ underachievement. Discourse, 25(2),

145�/169.

Walby, S. (1997). Gender transformations. London: Routledge.

Walkerdine, V. (2003). Reclassifying upward mobility: Femininity and the neoliberal subject.

Gender and Education, 15(3), 237�/247.

Warrington, M. (2005). Mirage in the Desert? Access to educational opportunities in an area of

social exclusion. Antipode, 37(4), 796�/816.

Warrington, M., & Younger, M. (1999). Perspectives on the gender gap in English secondary

schools. Research Papers in Education, 14(1), 51�/77.

Warrington, M., & Younger, M. (2000). The other side of the gender gap. Gender and Education,

12(4), 493�/508.

Warrington, M., & Younger, M. (2001). Single-sex classes and equal opportunities for girls and

boys: Perspectives through time from a mixed comprehensive school in England. Oxford

Review of Education, 27(3), 339�/356.

Warrington, M., & Younger, M. (2003). ‘We decided to give it a twirl’: Single-sex teaching in

English comprehensive schools. Gender and Education, 15(4), 339�/350.

Warrington, M.., & Younger, M. (2006). Working on the inside: Discourses, dilemmas and

decisions. Gender and Education, 18(3), 265�/280.

Warrington, M., Younger, M., & with Bearne, E. (2006). Raising boys’ achievement in primary

schools: Towards an holistic approach. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.

Weaver-Hightower, M. (2003). Crossing the divide: Bridging the disjunctures between theoreti-

cally oriented and practice-oriented literature about masculinity and boys at school. Gender

& Education, 15(4), 407�/421.

Weiner, G., Arnot, M., & David, M. (1997). Is the future female? Female success, male

disadvantage, and changing gender patterns in education. In A. Halsey, H. Lauder, P.

Brown, & A. Wells (Eds.), Education: culture, economy and society (pp. 620�/630). Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.

Weiss, L. (2003). Gender, masculinity and the New Economy. The Australian Educational

Researcher, 30(2), 111�/128.

Wente, M. (2005, March 12). Letting them go their separate ways. Canadian Globe & Mail, p. 19.

Wilson, G. (2005, June 10). No quick fix for the boys. The Guardian, p. 12.

Wintour, P., & Bright, M. (2000, January 23). Fantasy football helps schoolboys score at maths.

The Observer, p. 7.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Younger, M., & Warrington, M. (1996). Differential achievement of girls and boys at GCSE: Some

observations from the perspective of one school. British Journal of Sociology of Education,

17(3), 299�/313.

Younger, M., & Warrington, M. (2002). Single-sex teaching in a co-educational comprehensive

school in England: An evaluation based upon students’ performance and classroom

interactions. British Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 353�/374.

Younger, M., & Warrington, M., with Gray, J., Rudduck, J., Bearne, E., Kershner, R., & Bricheno,

P. (2005a). Raising boys’ achievement: DfES Research Report 636. London: DfES.

Younger, M., & Warrington, M., with McLellan, R. (2005b). Raising boys’ achievement in secondary

schools. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

12 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

closing the gender gap? issues of gender equity in english secondary schools

Documents