ENDEAVOUR FORUM NEWSLETTER No. 111, AUGUST 2003

Home | Contact Us | Newsletters

In   1977 I wrote a Minority Report as a member of the Victorian Committee on Equal Opportunity in Schools, in which I highlighted the fact that it was not girls but boys who were disadvantaged in education, and indeed in most areas of life. Twenty-five years later  my conclusions were confirmed by the  federal parliamentary report  on the education of boys, "Boys: Getting it right"   (October 2002), an inquiry which was instigated  by growing concern  throughout Australia about the failures of  males in the education system. 

One of the important submissions to the federal parliamentary inquiry was by Ken Rowe of the Australian Council for Educational Research who stated that an ACER   study confirmed what many studies had shown:  "The evidence indicating that boys on average achieve significantly lower levels than girls on all areas of the assessed cognitive curriculum throughout their primary and secondary schooling is not in dispute.  In the early years of schooling, boys constitute between 75 and 85 per cent of those children identified at risk of poor achievement progress in literacy". 

Recommendation on Remedial Classes Deleted   

It was known back in 1975 during the tenure of the Victorian Committee on Equal Opportunity in Schools that boys outnumbered girls 4: 1 among students requiring remediation in basic literacy skills.  Indeed a sub-committee of the Victorian Committee recommended that programs of remediation should be vigilantly implemented in primary school as concepts of "equal opportunity" were meaningless for those students who could not read or write.

However, because   the data on which this recommendation was based showed that it was more boys than girls who were in need of remediation, the recommendation was deleted.  It was totally contrary to the feminist mindset of the members of the main Committee to have any recommendation that benefited boys, or indeed to allow any hint that it was not females who were the victims of an oppressive patriarchal system that kept women in servitude.  Showing that girls had superior literacy skills and a 15% higher success rate in HSC exams would have blown the feminist mythology to smithereens. 

Single Sex Classes vs Co-education  

Confirmation of another of my recommendations, that in view of sex differences (which feminists will not acknowledge), ACER be asked to report on the comparative achievement of students in single-sex and co-educational schools, has come from a NSW study which found that separating primary school children into single-sex classes has helped reduce the literacy gap between girls and boys. This ground-breaking trial, held in   Griffith Public School in south-west NSW split up pupils during years 4 and 5 in an effort to address early literacy problems among boys.  Findings from the two-year-trial which ended last year showed that literacy scores for both sexes improved, with the boys slightly catching up to the girls. Results from the Basic Skills Test sat by pupils in year 3 and year 5 used by Charles Sturt University to evaluate the trial,   showed that pupils who had performed the most poorly in year 3 had shown a huge improvement by year 5.   On average, the students' results in Year 5 were more than 6% better than their results two years earlier. 

Teacher Bob Willetts, who taught the boys' class for two years, said he encouraged his pupils in literacy by allowing them to read articles on sports figures and current affairs. "They really enjoyed reading material they were interested in", he said. "If the content doesn't interest them, they won't tune in".  Mr. Willetts said some boys were now so confident with their literacy skills they had entered the  year's Australian Spelling Championships. The Griffith Public School trial has received positive feedback from parents, who said their children were learning better and were less intimidated of speaking up.  Girls' parents said classes were quieter and there were fewer distractions.  Teacher Angela Barnes who taught the girls' class for six months said she would support reintroducing the single-sex classes in the future.  "Academically it was exciting.  Behaviour was not an issue with the girls. They get a lot more done and a lot more one on one".     

As many  schools are co-educational  for economic rather than academic reasons, I had suggested that single-sex classes  could be held on a co-ed campus.  This is what Haileybury College, Melbourne is now  undertaking.  Haileybury's boys and girls are enrolled in two schools but they share the same sites and facilities such as libraries and music centres. Children attend co-ed classes until Year 4 but single-sex classes are being introduced in Year 5 and beyond.  Until 2000 Haileybury was a boys' school, but by 2007 it will offer girls' classes up to year 12. Haileybury Principal, Robert Pargetter, said "parallel education" had the advantages of single-sex tuition and the benefits of boys and girls sharing a school community.  He said the popularity of the "parallel" model resulted in waiting lists for the next three years' enrolments. 

My own view is that single-sex classes may be beneficial from Year l as the developmental differences between girls and boys can be significant at that stage. Undoubtedly having four sons and four daughters of my own gave me some 'hands-on' experience, although I was frequently reminded by the other members of the Victorian Committee on Equal Opportunity in Schools that I had no qualifications in education. 

Head of the federal parliamentary inquiry into boys' education,  Mr.  Kerry Bartlett, MHR, said there was evidence that boys were more motivated to study and more confident in classes without girls.  Of course recommending single-sex classes is anathema to the feminist lobby in education, who do not like any distinction on the basis of sex..  Indeed one of their reports in the seventies, "Girls, School and Society"  recommended that government funding be cut off from schools that "discriminate", and heading the list of "discriminations" was single-sex schooling. 

It is nice   even if somewhat belatedly, to be vindicated after 25 years ("I told you so!")  but it is a tragedy for those boys  who "slipped through the safety net"  of  remedial classes in literacy skills and who may be unemployed and unemployable now.  The problem with boys and education  seems to occur in all English-speaking democracies. In the USA, African-American women are in  universities at  double the number  of African-American men. Males who are functionally illiterate and unemployed  become alienated from society and are very vulnerable to being  involved in crime and other anti-social behaviours. 

Our present education system in which children are required to sit still for long periods, be quiet and work at desks is far more suited to girls than to boys.   Many primary-age  boys need  to dissipate some of their surplus energy by running around, pretending to be trucks or  aeroplanes ( and making  the appropriate noises) at least for a few minutes every hour. Many girls would look on at such rowdy behaviour with an air of wonderment - and superiority!

Women, even poorly educated women, always have a biological role, recognized by   society, as mothers.  We deprive men of their earner-provider role at our peril. 

Member Organisation, World Council for Life and Family

NGO in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC of the UN