Sacrificial girls: a case study of the impact of streaming and setting on gender reform

Abstract

This article reports on research funded by the Australian Research Council to investigate school responses to gender equity. It addresses the efforts of a disadvantaged school to tackle what they perceived to be gender inequalities, but in the process of constructing a top-set and bottom-set/ stream class they are developing new forms of old inequalities and new forms of inequalities. This research indicates that despite popular assertions that girls' education has become the priority of schools and education systems, girls are being further disadvantaged through attempts to implement market strategies coupled with gender reform agendas grounded in liberal notions of equity and relying on unsophisticated notions of affirmative action. In addition, this study highlights the extent to which a media-driven debate about boys' education has influenced the constitution of boys as the 'new disadvantaged' with the capacity to determine the nature of gender reform agendas and programmes in schools.

Being the ‘right’ kind of male teacher: the disciplining of John

“…In seeking to construct an environment that meets the essentialised needs of boys, schools have often taken up projects that reinforce and reinscribe those constructions of masculinity that pose problems for girls in schools (Martino et al 2005); have sacrificed the quality of girls' educational experiences in an attempt to improve boys' outcomes (Charlton et al 2007); and have devalued the achievements of girls (Boaler 1998). The calls for more male teachers also have a negative impact upon female teachers.…”

Gendered study choice: a literature review. A review of theory and research into the unequal representation of male and female students in mathematics, science, and technology

“…Research into the effects of so-called tracking in education systems had already shown that highly differentiated educational systems tend to produce more outcome inequality for pupils from different classes and from different ethnic backgrounds (Buchmann & Park, 2009;Charlton, Mills, Martino, & Beckett, 2007;Hillmert & Jacob, 2010;Lynch & Lodge, 2002;Van de Werfhorst & Mijs, 2010). Bedard and Cho (2007) revealed a similar effect for gendered educational choice patterns, namely, that countries with highly differentiated education systems produce more gender inequality than countries with less differentiated systems (Bradley & Charles 2004;Charles, 2011;Van Elk, Van der Steeg, & Webbink, 2009Van Langen, 2007;Van Langen, Rekers-Mombarg, & Dekkers, 2006Wöβmann, 2009).…”

Not just a ‘boy problem’: an exploration of the complexities surrounding literacy under-achievement

“…(p. 228; also see Jones, 2005) Sanford (2006) agrees, stating that schools 'cannot neglect the needs of one group to support the needs of another' (p. 312). In fact, she suggests that differing expectations for girls' and boys' literacy engagement may disadvantage girls (see Charlton, Mills, Martino, & Beckett, 2007). Boys, she argues, through their engagement with multimodal, visual, electronic and digital texts outside of school may in the long run be better equipped for the future.…”