English?

Justine Doughty - Let’s Hear it for the Boys: what is the best way to engage and challenge boys to excel in English?

Every year, the perennial question arises: what will we do about the boys? At Cowes Enterprise College, English results mirror national trends where boys’ achievement lags behind that of girls; in 2019, boys’ progress was -1.19, and shockingly, only 30% achieved a grade 5 and above. Sadly, boys on the Isle of Wight who are classed as eligible for free school meals and of white British ethnicity make the third worst progress in GCSE in the country, beating only Blackpool and Knowsley (citation note 1). Naturally, as a team, we find this very worrying and are constantly asking what we can do to ensure that our boys are given the best life chances by enabling them to achieve their true potential. Why does this matter? The statistics for young men who do not achieve well in school are grim. According to Pinkett and Roberts, boys are more likely to be excluded from school and less likely to go to university; boys are less likely to become apprentices; boys are less likely to find paid work between the ages of 22 and 29. They also belong to the gender that makes up 96% of the UK prison population. Children who are excluded from school at the age of 12 are four times more likely to be jailed as adults. 75% of suicides are male –it is the single biggest killer of men under the age of 40. Of these, the most deprived 10% of society are twice as likely to die from suicide as those boys born amongst the richest 10%. What can we do? As a team, we searched and searched for strategies that could help boys and reflected critically on our practice to find the ‘magic bullet’ that would solve the problem. As you can imagine, we came up short. Different books made different suggestions. Much of the research was outdated and heavily biased in favour of constructivist approaches that reinforced gendered assumptions and fostered ‘toxic masculinity’ such as: boys like competition, boys don’t like reading, boys are kinaesthetic learners that need to expend their natural energy (all that testosterone, you know!), boys learn better when a girl sits next to them as girls are inherently ‘civilized’ and boys are ‘savages’. Of course, some boys don’t like reading and some boys do like competition, but to say that they all do, is more of a woefully inadequate critique of culturally constructed masculinity, rather than honest academic assessment of boys’ potential. For many years, we worked with stereotypical strategies such as picking ‘boy friendly books,’ wasting time on trying to cater to VAK learning styles and devising all sorts of gimmicks to try to ‘hook’ the boys etc… Time for something more controversial; we took a risk and created two boys’ sets. We chose boys who were two grades or more below their target grade and who had shown potential. The classes were mixed prior attainment, with students who showed potential to achieve grade 6s and students for whom literacy was a significant issue. Laura Augustus and I took on the groups and worked through what strategies we thought would work best with them. For the purpose of this write up, I am only focussing on one, universally agreed upon truth about boys’ achievement – and any students’ achievement: high expectations. High Expectations All research agrees that high expectations equal high outcomes. However, it is important to note that what we don’t often talk about is how our perceptions and biases unconsciously ‘shape’ our

relationships with students. No one would like to think of himself or herself as having gender biases that result in treating one gender differently to another, but it is very common. One useful model for exploring this are the Pygmalion and Gollum effects.

Pygmalion Effect

The idea that high expectations have a highly beneficial influence on outcomes is known as the Pygmalion Effect

Gollum Effect

A type of self-fulfilling prophecy whereby

negative attitudes about a pupil’s academic ability or potential leads to inevitably poor outcomes.

Susan Jones and Debra Myhill conducted a study in 2004 at Exeter University that investigated whether teachers’ perceptions of gender influenced their expectations of a pupil’s likelihood of being successful in education. Their findings were that: Girls who excelled academically were seen as typical girls, while under achieving boys were viewed as typical of their gender. Boys who were academic high-fliers were seen as anolmolous, a challenge to gender norms Underachieving girls are ignored A tendency to associate boys with underachievement and girls with high achievement Girls are celebrated for their apparent obedience and passive natures; however, Myhill and Jones note that ‘seeing girls as successful but delicate, driven but risk averse contributes to unequal treatment of females at later stages of their education and careers, when masculine qualities appear to result in greater societal and financial recognition (Pinkett and Roberts 85). It doesn’t take long to see and hear the above in practice: how many times have we all thought, heard or said ‘oh, they’re a group of boys, and you know what they’re like… boys will be boys… etc. Do we challenge the girls as readily as the boys to present a proper uniform as we meet, greet and correct? Do we just expect that ‘laddish’ boys will not succeed in English as it is a ‘feminine’ subject? Do we believe that appreciation of literature is the reserve of the ‘upper classes’ and that students who plan to have solid trade careers have nothing to gain from exceling in literature? I still do not think there are black and white answers to these questions, as that would ignore too many factors; I suppose the point was, could we bring a group of boys together in English and convince them that a) they CAN do it b) they might even enjoy it? Early in September, it was apparent that, in general, the boys had low expectations and were automatically worried as the sets were ‘X4’ and ‘Y3’ and they perceived that they’d been placed in

‘bottom set’. Early work showed that they could not write for a sustained length of time, often running out of ideas for independent tasks quite quickly and were uninterested in independent study. They were sparky and willing to take part in analysing literature through discussion. In fact, class discussion revealed strong aptitude for literary analysis and abstract thinking but their writing lacked depth and detail: raw talent, yet unshaped by practise.

Student A Sept ‘19 Student B Sept ‘19

The above two examples show work typical of the X Band class at the beginning of the academic year in 2019. After some input, discussion and modelling, the students were likely to write only 1 analytical paragraph in 40 minutes. They lacked confidence above all, but also tended to be satisfied with the first ideas that came into their mind, neglecting to expand in the detail needed for sustained, assured writing. The work below is from the same students, 6 months later, under the same timed restrictions:

Student A March ‘20 Student B March ‘20 Both of these extended responses continue in the same detail onto the next page of the boys’ books. By March, most of the students were able to write independent, sustained, detailed critical analysis, with only short bursts of instruction and a model to use.

What method of instruction was the most useful?

Christina Hoff Sommers maintains that the shift away from ‘structured classrooms, competition, strict discipline and skill-and-fact, based learning has been harmful to all children – but especially to boys’

(Sommers, 701). A 1988 study titled ‘Can Boys Do Better,’ written by Headteacher Robert Bray after a ten year period of improving boys’ results at Mousham High School in Chelmsford and Thirsk School in North Yorkshire. The main tenants of their methods of instruction go against the major progressive teaching methods that have been pushed since (for a detailed study of this see Daisy Christodoulou’s 7 Myths of Education). These strategies included: More teacher led work A high structured environment Strict homework checks Consistently applied sanctions if work not done Greater emphasis on silent work Frequent testing One sex classes (The Jossey Bass Reading on Gender in Education, p 703) Another Headteacher, Ray Bradbury, in 1996 was alarmed at the high rate of boys not progressing as they should and employed a ‘NOT child centred class’; rather, the ‘pedagogy was strict and old fashioned. The class was didactic and teacher fronted. It involved sharp questions and answers, and constantly checking understanding’ (ibid 703). Although these studies may be seen as antiquated, Pinkett and Roberts also cite similar strategies that they argue are successful (2019): Beginning the lesson with a brief review of previous learning Providing models and examples with scaffolds Including opportunities for guided student practice  Checking for understanding, using lots of questions  Ensuring that students obtain a high success rate Although published more than 30 years after Bray’s initial study, the main ideas remain the same. These are not unlike Rosenshines’ principles of instruction:

In short: consistent high expectations and structured learning, we found, works for boys as it does for all students. What makes the difference is to what extent our own biases influence our daily interactions with boys – what we allow them to get away with, because as we say, they’re ‘boys’. And, after all, boys will be boys.

between teacher – led and student Pinkett and Roberts start their study by dispelling a few myths that have seeped into dominant discussions regarding boys’ education, one being that boys will only respond to their own interests or what they feel is relevant to their lives as they already know them. The main reasons why believe this to be a myth are:

observations noted the following: - Not enough use of timers to encourage independently working

Boys get bored eventually, even of things that normally interest them Boys are not a homogeneous group that all like the same things.

Assuming boys all like the same things reinforces stereotypes

It prevents some boys from building cultural capital It encourages low expectations of boys It promotes the dominant anti – school masculinity. Boys will remember the ‘relevant bit’ but not the actual learning

We had to find the right balance independent work. We had an external consultant come to offer support to our department and his - Inconsistent modelling (not all tasks were modelled) - Too much teacher talk/working too hard – not enough extended, quiet writing time within a time- frame.

Consequently, on top of the teaching strategies what they will enjoy or what they will be

mentioned earlier, we added daily use of timers, even more modelling and use of a 10/40/10 or 15/30/15 lesson formatting where instruction gradually started to take less and less time, with the middle 30 or 40 minutes almost every day given over to silent, independent working. Over able to handle academically’ Pinkett and

time, the majority of the students’ writing began to grow in detail and confidence and in lesson, consistently show

‘by appealing to pupils’ interests and making the curriculum relevant only to their lives, we are limiting their exposure to new ideas, as well as making assumptions about grade 5 potential.

Roberts.

Conclusion

Data did not reflect progress until late in the year, which was hard to deal with – we had to be confident, trust our plans and ‘steady’ the course. I did not include it in the write up since the students did not actually sit the exams. However, the atmosphere in the classroom was palpably academic and the students really wanted to achieve, and even better, believed that they could. All but one target boy agreed to come to English revision after school four days a week (21 students), which create a buzzing atmosphere where the boys encouraged each other’s progress. Unfortunately, the pandemic put a bit a very fast stop to our endeavours, but hopefully we can try again next year and apply the lessons learnt. It is important to note also, that we do not necessarily support same sex classes in all circumstances or for all boys/girls. At the time, in the context of this year with these students, it seemed a plausible strategy we had not tried and, we are confident it was the right decision for these students. Different years/ different cohorts would need to be assessed and decisions made based on their particular qualities and needs.

1.

2.

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/11-to-16- years-old/gcse-results-attainment-8-for-children-aged-14-to-16-key-stage-4/latest#byethnicity-gender-and-area Boys don’t try? Rethinking masculinity in schools By Matt Pinkett and Mark Roberts, Routledge Press, 2019

3. 4.

5.

https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2013/exclusionprison-280213 Identity, Neoliberalism and Aspiration: Educating white working class boys By Garth Stahl, Routledge Press, 2015 The Jossey- Bass Reader on Gender in Education ‘ Why Johnny can’t Read and Write,’ Christina Hoff Sommers, pp 700 – 719, 2002

‘ Hattie, J. “Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement.” Routledge. 2009. P. 122. Hattie, J. “Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning.” Routledge, 2012. P. 47. McCormack, A. (1997) ‘Classroom Management Problems, Strategies and Influences in Physical Education’ European Physical Education Review. 3(2), pp. 102-115. Rogers, S. (2019) 'Behaviour Management in Physical Education', Physical Education Matters, Spring (2019), pp. 31-33. Sanford, J., Emmer, T. and Clements, B. 1983. Improving classroom management. Educational Leadership, 40: 56–60. [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]