gender

• How can feminism explain why girls do better than boys at school?

  Feminism has challenged the traditional stereotype of women (through changes in media, law, social attitudes) being a housewife only and encouraged girls to be more career-driven and ambitious. This means girls strive to do well in school, working harder because they want to overcome patriarchy and are ambitious, with greater goals than boys because of feminist ideas and encouragement.
• What evidence of feminism did McRobbie find?

  Magazine study- in 1970s, magazines emphasised the importance of marriage, not being 'left on the shelf', - in 90s, they emphasise strong, independent women who get what they want.
• Why are radical feminists critical of the arguement that feminism has led to girls doing better in school?

  the system is still patriarchal eg education there is sexual harassment of girls at school still, women are under represented in many areas of the curriculum (esp in history) and education still limits girls' subject choices/career options.
• How has increased family diversity (divorce, cohabit, less marriage, smaller families, lone parents) led to girls doing better in education?

  1. Lone parent families - gives a strong and independent female role model2. rise in divorce rates - show girls that they should not rely solely on a husband to look after them3. smaller families - girls get equal attention to boys rather than, like historically, where boys' education was prioritised, now they have ambition for girls too- overall, this encourages girls to get qualifications so that they can make themselves happy and financially stable
• intersectional eval - which girls are more likely to be impacted by changing families?

  Black Caribbean families are more likely to be lone parent families, so the strong female head is relevant. - aisan families are large and value family and marriage, yet they overachieve.
• how can we evaluate the explanatino that girls do better due to changes in the family ?

  - depends on ethnicity, asians example. - w/c girls have a dilemma between their families and boyfriends, and education - girls who grow up in unstable homes may prioritise finding love, finding a family
• how can it be argued that changes in women's employment explains why girls do better in schools?

  This teaches girls to see their futures in terms of paid work not housewives, and are also motivated by the greater pay and opportunities available to them today achieve those. so, they work hard and get good grades for their futures.
• How can the argument that changes in womens employment explains why girls do better be criticsed?


  - gender pay gap - women still more likely to do part time work, not CEOs- women are still depicted as housewices in a lot of childrens tv, books etc (but irl has a better effect)
• what evidence is there of girls changing ambitions? (sharps interviews)

  (sharps interviews) 1974 - low aspirations, believed success was unfeminine and prioritised a man finding and loving them.1990 - priority on careers and shaping themselves. Saw themselves as an individual woman and not just dependent on a man's income.
• How can girls changing ambitions explain why girls do better at school?

  To achieve these new ambitions of independence, girls know they need a good education and to be well-qualified, so they work hard to achieve these and be successful.
• how can girls changing ambitons be evaluated?

  - society still teaches girls to prioritise love from a young age - varies between middle and working class girls COUNTER criticsm - all girls are now taught they can do it all.
• what are equal oppertunities policies?

  Feminism means policymakers are more aware of gender issues, and teachers actively avoid stereotyping girls.so, belief in gender equality is now a mainstream part of education and prioritised. Schools now HAVE to treat boys and girls the same and policies/efforts aim for this.
• what are some examples of equal oppertunities policies?

  National curriculum also made girls study the same subjects as boys until gcse.Eg. GIST and WISE programs encourage girls to pursue careers in STEM (non-trad. For girls)
• How can equal oppertunities policies explain ?

  Many barriers to girls' success have been removed and non-traditional subjects for girls have been changed so that they are taught equally and encouraged to girls. So, school is more meritocratic and girls, who work harder than boys, achieve more.( Boaler).
• what are the failures of equal oppertunities policies?


  There are still differences in subject choices at a level, gcse and uni between girls and boys regardless.- black girls are more likely to experience negative labelling, may not be entered into these programs/not equal in school
• How can positive role models in schools explain why girls do better?

  Increase in proportion of female teachers and heads, women in senior positions.this means there are women in senior positions showing girls that they can achieve non traditional high positions, be well educated and so they act as role models to young girls, who then also become well educated.
• How can the explanation that girls do better due to positive role models be criticsed?

  - female headteachers are only more common in primary schools, who get paid less and receive less status for their role in society- However, in secondary, there are plenty of female teachers but senior staff are most likely to be men, even though the field is dominated by women. - This sends the message that female headteachers are only for primary schools, less impressive and more focused on nurture/childcare (younger kids). in secondary, men > women
• How can changes in GCSE and coursework explain why girls do better in school?


  Mitsos & Browne conclude girls do better in coursework as they are more well-organised, spend more time and care doing and presenting their work and having equipment.- Due to socialisation, girls are more tidy, patient and organised, giving them an advantage when it comes to exams.So, girls have benefitted from coursework introduced at GCSE/A-level. Gorard found the achievement gap widened as soon as it was introduced.2. Greater use of oral exams benefit girls who have better linguistic skills
• Why does Elwood argue that changes to gcse and coursework is unleikly to explain why girls do better?


  coursework is unlikely to be a significant/only cause of the gender gap because exams have much more influence on the final grade than coursework.This is even more true now (after reforms) because coursework has become even les relevant, GCSEs/A-levels even more focused on the end of course exams - yet, girls still do better
• what did the frenchs study find?

  Eg The Frenchs' found boys received more attention because they attracted more reprimands. Francis found they were also disciplined more harshly and felt picked on.
• How can teacher attention explain why girls do better than boys?

  Therefore, teachers respond more positively to girls, who are seen as cooperative, rather than boys (seen as disruptive). This triggers a self-fulfilling prophecy in which successful interactions with teachers promote girls self-esteem and raise their achievement levels.
• how have stereotypes in the curriculum been challenged?

  1970s - reading schemes mainly showed girls as mums/wives, and textbooks showed girls as afraid of physics and boys as inventive in maths. Weiner found these sexist images have been removed.
• How has the challenging of sterotpyes in the curriculum led to girls doing better and how can we criticse that?

  Weiner says this has helped raise girls' achievement by showing positive examples of what they can do and removing barriers that influence them to be demotivated.Boys still dominate STEM subjects and their are differences in subject choices at A-level, even GCSE, and Uni.
• How can league tables explain why girls do better than boys?

  Marketisation has led to a competitive climate which means schools want girls because they achieve more than boys, thus boosting their league table position. This can lead to cream skimming (Barlett) where the selection process favours girls over boys.
• which two studies look at the relationship between girls and class?

  Archer - symbolic capital , Evans - successful w/c girls
• What is symbolic capital?

  - symbolic capital refers to the status, recognition and sense of worth that we are able to obtain from others
• what did archer find about how w/c girls gained symbolic capital?

  - Archer found that girls gained symbolic capital from their peers by performing their working-class feminine identities, but this conflicted with their education. this is through: 1. hyper-heterosexual identity2. having a boyfriend 3. being loud
• archer: how did having a hyper-heterosexual identity lead to w/c girls doing less well than m/c girls?

  many girls spent a lot of time, effort & money into creating desirable identities with sexy clothes, make up and hairstyles, combined black urban American styles and unisex sportswear.- This brought them status, but they often conflicted with school over dress code, teachers saw the girls' preoccupation with appearance as a distraction from education.- this led to the school 'othering' the girls, defining them as incapable of educational success because the school sees the ideal female pupil as desexualised and middle class, excluding w/c.
• archer: how did having a boyfriend lead to w/c girls doing less well than m/c girls?

  - This is seen as a distraction that gets in the way of schoolwork and lowered girls' aspirations eg. prioritising boyfriends, losing interest in uni and aspiring to settle down instead
• archer: how did being loud lead to w/c girls doing less well in school than m/c girls?

  loud feminine identities led to them being outspoken, independent assertive eg questioning teachers' authority, which doesnt conform to ideal pupil and leads to negative label etc.
• EVANS - successful working class girls: How did the girls' working class identities contribute to the ambition of the girls in Evans' study?

  It increased their ambition, so that they could help their family. The girls wanted to go to uni & increase their earning power not for themselves but so that they could help their families, which reflects their w/c feminine identities that values 'caring' and contributing to their family
• EVANS - successful working class girls: What put working class girls in Evans' study off higher education (university)?

  They wanted to live at home so that they could contribute and due to economic necessity - wanted to minimise cost and feared going into debt
• EVANS - successful working class girls: What limited the quality and choice of their degree?

  Although living at home was more affordable, it limited their choice of uni and the market value of their degree.
• EVANS - successful working class girls: Why did the girls in Evans' study prefer the local to the distant?

  The local is a key feature of w/c habitus. Not just an economic choice, they felt positive and were fulfilling their identity.
• EVANS - successful working class girls: What did Evans conclude from her study?


  Evans concludes that for more successful w/c girls, the caring aspect of w/c feminine identity produces a desire to stay at home while studying which results in their self exclusion from elite universities further afield limits their studies.
• How was the fact that Evans' study was in London significant? Are London schools representative of the entire population?


  Growing up in London, they have a lot of choice already in London, so they have enough to fill UCAS application which might not be the case outside of London
• how can boys literacy explain why boys do less well than girls?

  Parents spend less time reading to their son and when they do it is usually mothers who do most of the reading, so they see it as a girl's activity.Boys' leisure pursuits eg sports, do little to help develop their language and communication skills (vs bedroom culture)So, boys have poorer language and literacy skills than girls which affects their performance negatively. (DCSF 2007)
• how can we evaluate the explanation that boys literacy explains why they do less well?

  - The gov't has introduced a range of policies to improve boys skills, but there is still a gender gap.- May apply to w/c boys more whose dads are likely to go out and work, have more sports cultures and maybe can afford less books- Increase of 'new man' may mean that more fathers read to the boys at home. More common in mc households.
• how can globalisation and the decline in traditional mens jobs explain why boys do less well?

  globalisation has led to deindustrialisation in the uk, which used to mainly employ men (eg mining) Mitos and Browne claim that this decline in male employment opportunities has led to an identity crisis for men, and now they see little prospect in getting a proper job, which undermines their motivation to get a good education
• How can the view that a decline in traditional mens jobs explains why boys do less well be evaluated?

  - There have been new industries, STEM opportunities, professional jobs that require more skills and make more money so maybe this should motivate them esp as they are still breadwinners tbh. - deindustrialisation has destroyed w/c jobs that require little qualifications, so unlikely that loss of such jobs would have much impact on boys' motivation to get qualifications. would affect w/c more than m/c