Internal Gender Factors

• GCSE and Coursework


  Gorard found that the gender gap in achievement was fairly constant from 1975 until 1989, which it increased sharply. This was the year GCSE and coursework was introduced. He concludes that the gender gap in achievement is a product of the changed system of assessment rather than of failing of boys.

  Mitsos and Brown explain this trend and conclude that girls are more successful in coursework because they are more conscientious and better organised than boys. E.g. girls spend more time on their work and are better at meeting deadlines.
• Challenging stereotypes in the curriculum

  Research in the 1970s and 80s found that reading scheme portrayed women mainly as housewives and mothers, that physics books showed them as frightened by science, and that maths books depicted boys are more inventive. Weiner (1995) argues that since the 1980s, teachers have challenged such stereotypes. Also, in general, sexist imaged have been removed from learning materials. This may have helped to raise girls’ achievement by presenting them with more positive images of what women can do.
• Selection and marketisation


  Marketisation policies have created a more competitive climate in which schools see girls as desirable recruits because they achieve better exam results. Jackson (1998) notes that the introduction of league tables has improved opportunities for girls: high achieving girls are attractive to schools, whereas low-achieving boys are not. This tends to create a self-fulfilling prophecy – because girls are more likely to be recruited by good schools, they are more likely to do well.
• Feminisation of education


  Sewell claims that boys fall behind because education has become feminised (BBC, 2006). This is when schools do not nurture masculine traits such as competitiveness and leadership. Instead they celebrate qualities associated with girls such as methodical working and attentiveness in class. As a result boys feel under-valued in the education system and therefore underachieve.
• 'Laddish' subcultures


  Epstein (1998) argues that the growth of laddish subcultures has contributed to boys’ underachievement. She examined the way masculinity is constructed within a school and found that working-class boys are likely to be harassed, labelled as ‘sissies’ and subject to homophobic verbal abuse if they appear to be swots. This is because in working-class cultures, masculinity is equated with being tough and doing manual work. As a result, working class boys tend to reject school work to avoid being called ‘gay’.
• GCSE and coursework criticism


  Elwood (2005) argued that although coursework has some influence, it is unlikely to be the only cause of the gender gap because exams have much more influence than coursework in final grades.
• Challenging stereotypes in the curriculum criticism


  Weiner’s research has gained theoretical support from Liberal Feminists. They take a march of progress view of education and claim that small improvements inside and outside schools has resulted in an increase in educational achievement amongst females.
• Selection and marketisation criticism


  Slee (1998) offers further explanation of the effects of marketisation by providing an explanation for boys’ underachievement. He argues that boys are less attractive to schools because they are more likely to suffer from behavioural problems and are four times more likely to be excluded.
• Feminisation of education criticism

  The feminisation of education does not consider the fact that boys can still be seen to dominate lessons and take up more of the teachers’ time. It can be said that perhaps girls are underachieving in school, but not so in relation to boys.
• 'Laddish' subcultures evaluation


  Epstein’s work is supported by Francis (2007) who claims that boys were more concerned than girls about being labelled by peers as swots because this label is more of a threat to their masculinity than it is to girls’ femininity.