Educational sexism in Queensland

Both of these results suggest that the system is discriminatory against males by about 2 OP rungs. That is a huge difference in outcomes. There will be vast numbers of males who now miss out on entry to some courses. Note that the OP calibration system using the QCST is both sound and reliable. Hence the problem must lie with the assessment structures within the schools. Unless someone can convince me to the contrary I conclude that presently we have statewide systematic sex discrimination on a huge scale. Of interest therefore is whether or not that discrimination has always existed. Such information might lead to finding the cause(s) of the problem

The data used above came direct from the QSA website. The oldest data of the same variety is for 1992. Applying the same technique to that year’s data the outcomes were:

• The excess number of female versus males was there again but much reduced (F.14821 M.13107)
• 17.50% males and 14.48% females achieved an A on CST.  47.48% males and 42.68% females achieved an A or B on CST. The differences are still noteworthy but not as remarkable was the case for 2012.
• An inspection of the OP results shows that the males 17.5% fell between the 6 and 7 bands. For females their 14.48% fell between the 5 and 6 bands.
• For the (A+B) CST results, the males 47.48% fell between the 12 and 13 bands. For females 42.6% fell between the 11 and 12 bands.
• Apparent discrimination against males already existed but at only about one OP rung difference.

When working for my PhD, the topic being Participation in rigorous Maths and Physics… I deal inter alia with claims extant at the time that ‘females were catching up with the males’ in maths and the physical Sciences. Those claims did not look at the female/male cohorts QCST results.

Using the very detailed numerical data for QCST which I obtained from the old Board of Senior Secondary Studies I was able to ‘predict’ how many students would be awarded either a Very High Achievement or a High Achievement. That assumed that QCST results were, for large groups taken as a whole, a useable predictor of results in Physics or whatever.  A brief summary of the outcomes of those calculations compared to actual results was, all for 1992 -the year I used earlier:

For the purposes of this article the big points from that set of analyses are (a) that at that time 1992 QCST results were a very good predictor of actual subject results and (b) in 1992 there was no sign of discrimination for or against males in the maths and science subjects.

So, for the three analyses: OP2012, OP1992 and maths/science subjects 1992 we have:

• 2012 OP results: severe anti male discrimination of a magnitude that is about two full OP bands.
• 1992 OP results: anti male discrimination of a magnitude that is about one OP band level. That discrimination must have arisen from the inputs from subjects outside maths/science.
• 1992 subject maths/science results: no discrimination at all.