(those with a * are 2000 onwards)
SOCIALISATION
THE OLD STORY
Theorist
Argument
Research
Methods
used
Evaluation
Sue Sharpe
(1974)
Working class girls had very
traditional views about
womanhood – valued
immediate gratification
Used
interviews
(as gave her
a more valid
picture) and
content
analysis
All very well but her follow
up study found that girls
had much higher
aspirations; thus still fair
to talk about girls being
disadvantaged?
Sue Lees (1986)
Agreed with Sharpe’s
findings; found that girls
were reconciled to a life of
domesticity, marriage and
restricted job opportunities.
Behaviour of boys and girls
is fixed before education;
schools cannot counter this
culture that disadvantages
girls.
Jane French
(1986)
Labelling and the Hidden
Curriculum
Ann Colley
Argues that males and
females are socialised into
different gender roles (men
= self reliance,
individualism, ambition,
dominance), (women =
passivity, kindness,
affection) which are evident
in what subjects boys and
girls choose.
Swann and
Graddol (1994)
Found that the teacher
gazed at the boys more-so
than the girls – particularly
when formulating a
question.
Argued that the content of
the curriculum and the
attitudes and expectations
of teachers combined
prepare girls for male
domination where girls
become invisible in the
classroom
Dale Spender (a
lady don’t forget!)
(1983)
Non
participant
observation
Tape
recorded the
lessons she
taught.
Yet more options open to
women than in the past;
surely this has therefore
changed the culture of
women?
An old argument?
Ignores the new man who
promotes new identities
for boys; making them
less demanding and more
understanding of the
female gender
Yet even Colley
acknowledged that the
National Curriculum
helped reduce this
differential subject take
up. Also, more subjects
open to both boys and
girls. Post modernists
would argue that gender
roles are less fixed than
they were.
Could Graddol and
Swann have
misinterpreted the actions
of the teachers?
One could criticise
Spender on two counts;
firstly, is it possible that
she may have an agenda
in her research – in
forwarding a feminist
argument? Secondly, is it
possible to suggest that
this study is too old to
generalise?
Labelling and the Hidden Curriculum
Theorist
Argument
Michelle
Stanworth (1983)
Obtained similar results
when she looked at FE.
Teachers were more likely
to know boys names and
gave boys more attention.
Also giving higher
expectations to boys.
Stanworth also argues that
humanities classes
especially practiced the
hidden curriculum.
Randall (1987)
Noted that in the Craft,
Design and Technology
lessons he observed, boys
tended to occupy the ‘action
zone’ around the teacher.
Argue that girls are
disadvantaged in mixed
schools as they receive less
attention than boys
Sarah, Scott and
Spender
Measor and
Sykes
Argue that initiatives to
encourage girls to do
science are rarely
supported by teachers
Skeggs
Adds that boys try to adopt
more masculine values in
subjects like science, with
the effect that they
intimidate girls
Argues that girls are even
disadvantaged in single sex
schools
Found evidence of gender
bias in some educational
reading schemes. From a
study of 179 stories in 6
reading schemes, Lobban
found that only 35 stories
had heroines, compared
with 71 who had heroes.
Byrne
Lobban (1974)
Leslie Best
Examined a sample of 132
Research
Methods
used
Non
participant
observation.
Non
Participant
Observation.
Content
analysis
Content
Juxt
See juxt of Spender (both
these studies date back
to 1983). Mitsos and
Browne as well as Harris
argue that opposite to
Stanworth and Spender;
boys do not enjoy as
good a relationship with
teachers and teachers
have a lower expectation
of boys.
A dated study – is it still
the case that males
occupy the ‘action zone’
around the teacher?
See Mitsos and Browne
above. There is also the
argument by Tony Sewell
that mixed schools now
have a “feminised
curriculum” which actually
disadvantages boys not
girls.
Are we not undermining
free choice here; if girls
and boys choose to do
different subjects then so
be it?
Is this something that
cannot be tackled? Are
we giving too much
attention to inside school
factors here?
Byrnes study is very old
(1978) therefore can we
generalise?
Content analysis may tell
one more about what one
had decided to look for
that what the meaning of
the document is.
Content analysis may tell
Labelling and
the Hidden
Curriculum
(1992)
Hernstein and
Murray
books for pre-school age
children and found that in
these 132 books, 792 male
and 356 female characters
were portrayed.
Imply that 60 – 80%
intelligence is inherited – if
girls do less well it is
because of inherited
intelligence
analysis
one more about what one
had decided to look for
that what the meaning of
the document is.
IQ tests experiment
Simply far too
deterministic and
fatalistic.
CULTURE OF MASCULINITY
THE NEW STORY
Theorist
Argument
Askew and Ross
Argue that, as the
name of their study
suggests, boys don’t
cry; they emphasise
their machismo by
being independent and
showed a lack of trust
in each other – hardly
conditions for academic
success!
Argues a similar thing
by looking at Afro
Caribbean males; such
males would gain
status by other means
other than academic
success.
Argue that working
class boys have focal
concerns – machismo,
risk, fatalism, valuing
trouble etc. which,
when related to
education, may explain
why they fare badly
sometimes
Found that boys were
more likely to see their
masculinity being
bound up with being
tough and so school
work was seen as
Portrays males as a
homogeneous group
(all the same). Also,
one could argue that
this study is quite dated
(1988).
Found that boys believed
that school work should
only be done at school
and, unlike girls, are not
prepared to draft and
redraft assignments.
Yet does this study
generalise all boys?
O’Donnell
Walter Miller
Epstein (1998)
*Burns and Bracey
(2001)
Research
Methods
Juxt
Although value in this
study by throwing
ethnicity into the mix,
one could criticise it by
portraying all Afro
Caribbean males as a
homogeneous group.
Yet this study can be
criticised in two ways;
firstly simply looks at
working class males
(sees all working class
males as a
homogeneous group).
Secondly, what about
females?
CULTURAL DEPRIVATION /
POORER LITERACY SKILLS
*Kirby (2001)
Mitsos and Browne
*Kirkland Rowland (a
polling company)
(2007)
CRISIS OF
MASCULINITY
Jackson (1998)
+ Mitsos and Browne
EXPECTATIONS
THE FEMINISATION
OF THE CURRICULUM
UNREALISTIC
Becky Francis
Melanie Phillips
(1997)
Tony Sewell
Believes that the
decline in social games
and the growth of video
games means boys
find it more difficult to
develop the language
skills essential to exam
/ school success.
Argued that boys have
poorer literacy skills
than girls as mothers
are more likely to read,
daughters have same
sex role models to
encourage them.
Found that there was a
marked difference in
parental aspirations for
boys and girls.
Argues that young
males feel a crisis of
masculinity that is
experienced by their
fathers; particularly if
their fathers suffer a
loss of masculine
working class identities.
Also, the rise in female
lone parent families
means that many
young males lack a
male role model.
Argues that boys are
more likely to have
unrealistic expectations
which also often
require little formal
qualifications. As such
boys are less focused
and less driven to do
well in school.
Bemoaned the
feminisation of
education.
Same as above
Again, generalises all
boys?
Generalises boys –
even if boys have lower
literacy skills does not
education compensate
for this?
Survey method.
Surveys just provide a
snapshot of any one
point in time.
Seems very
deterministic; if there is
a crisis of masculinity
could it not encourage
males to work harder
and strive for greater
academic success?
It may not be that boys
have unrealistic
expectations but rather
they simply have
expectations that
schools cannot always
be a means to!
Yet one could argue
that the doing away
with coursework means
that the curriculum is
being “masculinised”
again.
As above
RESISTING THE HIDDEN
CURRICULUM
LABELLING
Paul Willis (1977)
Argues that working
class boys see through
the hidden curriculum
that disadvantages
them and so form a
subculture in response
to this (“the lads”)
Mac an Ghaill
Argues that boys
sometimes form male
anti school subcultures
in education such as
the “fighting, f**king
and football” culture” –
the “macho lads”
Mitsos and Browne
(1998) and Harris
Argue that teachers
have a lower
expectation of boys
and expect them to be
more disruptive.
*Myhill and Jones
(2006)
Found that boys were
treated more negatively
than girls, sometime
identifying very subtle
forms of bias such as
tone of voice used.
Found very similar
things to the above.
Barber
Conducted semi
structured
interviews
Could argue that Paul
Willis’ study is a more a
class based issue than
gender based. Also, it
bignores the positive
reactions one can have
to the hidden
curriculum – see
O’Donnell’s study of
Afro Caribbean females
for example.
Yet, Mac an Ghaill
would be the first to
acknowledge that male
subcultures can also be
very positive;
remember the
existence of the “Real
Englishmen”, the “New
Enterprisers” and the
“Academic Achievers”
for example.
Michelle Stanworth
would criticise this
argument by saying
that teachers actually
have higher
expectations of boys.
Could the results be
more a result of the
questions used than
anything else?
Additional vital information;

We should not get carried away with the term underachieving –only some
boys are “failing” (Epstein, 1998). Besides, boys are doing better than
they were a generation ago. (Coffey, 2001).

Must not get carried away with the terms “failing boys/ girls” – who’s to
say what is “failing”?