This week I had the great privilege of forming part of a panel for a debate on improving the performance and ultimate life chances of a sadly too large cohort of boys in our society who are underachieving. Indeed, just a few weeks ago I wrote an article about the fact that only 50% of boys in the non-selective sector in Northern Ireland appear to have passed GCSE Maths this year. The conference was really interesting, and fair play and kudos to the organisers who are trying to create a synthesis of approach as regards research and intervention across many sectors and spheres including schools, colleges, higher level education, youth organisations and groups. This has to be welcomed.
In my own school the performance of boys has increased quite impressively in recent years. In 2017, over 92 % of boys attained 5 or more GCSE passes at A*-C, compared with 70% in 2014. The gap between boys and girls' performance using the same statistic has narrowed from 16% in 2014 to 6% in 2017. When English and Maths are included into the 5 or more GCSEs, the statistic for boys rises from 58% in 2014 to 67% in 2017.
Something has obviously happened to bring about this improvement. Quite a lot of people have asked me whether it is due to a focus on boy-specific strategies. The answer? Well, it's quite simple. NO. Firstly, because we never deliberately set out to focus on so-called 'boy-specific strategies', and secondly because the performance of girls is also improving. So what may have brought this improvement about, if it wasn't 'boy-specific strategies'? Well, rather than boy-specific strategies, a series of whole-school decisions have probably impacted favourably on boys.
Firstly, we have worked hard on developing a culture of high aspiration and expectation across the board. You will not find a child doing Essential Skills during the timetabled day at my school. You will not find a pupil undertaking T1 Maths as a module. We have introduced increased English and Maths time for a cohort of our pupils. The very firm and clear aspiration is that all pupils aspire to undertaking at least 7 GCSEs (not including equivalents which are additional) which will allow them to achieve at least grade C or above.
Secondly, we have revamped our Key Stage 4 curriculum to meet much more effectively the needs and aspirations of our learners, as well as the local economy. This has happened in both academic and general / vocational pathways. Alongside Triple Award (Full Award) Science, we have introduced both GCSE and BTEC Agriculture, GCSE Moving Image Arts and BTEC ChildCare /Sports Studies amongst other subjects.
Thirdly, we took the decision some years ago to scrap streaming at Key Stage 3. This was a big decision, and one which we pondered on for well over a year. However, the evidence from years of data was incontrovertible. A cohort of pupils, in particular, in the lower streams were not performing well enough. Whilst the top streams were meeting and exceeding potential, a significant cohort in the lower streams were not. Sometimes, these lower streams were referred to as 'sink groups' where progress was not just stagnant, but where behaviour was less than desirable. We have moved to a non-streaming system which is very carefully crafted to allow for continued challenge and competition for high ability pupils, but which ensures the expedition of progress for ALL pupils, including the cohort I have referred to. Early indications are encouraging. Alongside progress more in line with potential, the non-streaming system has brought a few more positive side-effects, such as better behaviour management and discipline, and a potential raising of self-esteem. Having said that, I remain open-minded to the benefits of streaming.
Fourthly, we have undertaken a real nitty-gritty focus on high-quality learning and teaching in the classroom, prompted by many great writers such as Willingham and Sherrington, and led by Rosenshine's Principles of Instruction. I am firmly of the belief that my school's ethos of explicit instruction (the teacher as 'sage on the stage', teaching from the front using drill, rote learning, recap strategies etc) works better for both boys and girls. Sadly, as I mentioned before, I do not believe that this country's Revised Curriculum, with its emphasis amongst other things on teacher facilitation of learning, group work, 'skills' and ICT is the right curriculum for our pupils - whether male or female.
By focusing on the four things above, I think my school has - albeit inadvertently - tapped into what actually does work for boys, as Mark Roberts points out in his excellent article from Leeds 2017:
1: high expectations
2: a very good rapport between teacher and pupil in the classroom, based primarily on strong behaviour management which is the pre-cursor for building positive relationships
3: Strong approaches to feedback.
And that is it. In my experience, that is what works for boys. With that in mind, the next natural conclusion is that we don't treat boys any differently to girls. I do not agree with schools which place 'boy-specific strategies' on their School Development Plans.
However it is true that we are still encouraged and coerced through our curriculum and through advice we are given from so-called 'authorities' on the matter in Northern Ireland to treat boys differently. Over the years, there have been many fads in relation to 'boy-specific' strategies. Some people believe that topics in the classroom have to be relevant to boys - 'boy-friendly'. As a Modern Languages Teacher, in years gone by I would have seen myself twisting and turning lesson content superficially in order to 'appeal' to boys. During the World Cup, for example, my room would have been full of football posters, and activities where pupils would be colouring in flags of World Cup countries with the colour in the foreign language as the 'learning content'. What a waste of time. Firstly, it was a real distraction from high-quality learning. Secondly, for every 3 boys who like football, it is important to remember that there is probably one who doesn't. We must not stereotype boys, as this is clearly doing them a disservice. Thirdly, my actions in the classroom played to the wrong belief that pupils had to be motivated before they achieved success. Wrong. Pupils need to achieve success and this, in turn, leads to motivation. A suggestion that anything other than deep, high-quality learning and teaching in the classroom will lead to success for boys, is again doing them a disservice.
Another fad of course, is the notion that boys must be undertaking kinaesthetic activities. I despair at so-called 'research' which suggests that boys will learn better if they are flicking switches, pushing buttons on an I-Pad, being 'creative' on a computer or engaging in walking debates. NO! Again, these approaches can quite often - in my opinion - lead to cognitive overload in the classroom and totally distract from high quality learning and teaching. If Willingham is right that 'memory is the residue of thought', why on earth are we promoting the pure distractors of kinaesthetic activities for our boys? Again, we risk doing them a clear disservice. The best approach is -quite simply - to teach the boys well, set the bar high, create a good rapport and offer strong feedback.
And I think we must also be careful with the notion of competition. Don't get me wrong - I am a big supporter of competition. Our children must learn that sometimes in life they will win - other times they may lose. That's why competition in sport / house competitions etc is important. However, in the classroom, competition is a much more nuanced affair. Some people think that boys thrive on competition and rewards in the classroom. Well, the one or two who win - possibly. However, the many who don't risk being silently deflated. Much as I love children using self-quizzing software at home, you will never find my class undertaking Quizlet LIVE or other such competitive activities in the classroom. At a broader level, my school has moved away from putting class and year positions on our reports, and we place much more focus on pupils tracking their progress against their OWN potential.
So, in short you will never find my school explicitly and deliberately focusing on 'boy-specific strategies'. Because, quite simply, I don't think they exist. You teach the boys exactly as you teach the girls, with three core things in mind:
* High expectation
* Good relationships
* Strong feedback.
No comments:
Post a Comment