Slugs and snails and puppy dogs' tails

Forty years ago a teacher was working in a new all boys comprehensive school in the East End of London. The “form” classes where the morning roll was marked and general bits and pieces of information were passed around was what was called a “vertical tutor group”. The idea was that each of the many tutor groups contained children from all the age groups and was hence more akin to a “normal” society rather than a simpler year grouping.

The East End in those days was rough. As in as guts.

One of the rather older students in this teachers form group we shall call Fred Nurk. Fred’s fathers name was also Fred Nurk, or to be more precise, it had been. Fred Nurk senior was not around any more and the general opinion was that he was in the river subsequent to being presented with the traditional concrete boots. As you would understand the matter was not discussed in the tutor group where poor young Fred was very quiet. It was nevertheless a matter that was on people's minds.

As with any form group anywhere, there were occasional absences. The kids were, as usual, expected to bring a note on return. It was essential that such notes were examined with great care, preferably with a sample of the kids written work available for comparison. Another student, just a little 12-year-old chap was absent one day. Well, so what, no big deal. The next day he turned up a few minutes late. Teacher holds out a hand and says, “Where's your note?”

“Please sir, I didn't bring one but I was away yesterday to go to my grannies funeral, 'cus she had been murdered.” Teacher this time sticks out a leg and says, “Here, pull this one, it plays God save the Queen”. Trouble was it was true, there had been a second violent death inside just that little group. The little boy was able to convince the teacher. Embarrassment, grovelling apologies, horrible silence in the class, a most appalling mistake: and from a teacher who was experienced in the area and should have known better.

Little boy listens for a couple minutes and then makes everything OK again. “Yeah, well sir, don’t worry about it, she was an old cow anyway.”

So yes, the kids were rough and frequently criminal (the headmaster put on a little celebration for the senior staff when the number of students on probation fell below 100). They tended to be ruthless towards those they did not like and respect but totally loyal to and protective of those they did.

Thinking of that sort of school, there are a couple of questions that come to mind. Firstly what in the blue blazes would have been a “relevant” education for those students? Work in the docks? Sorry they were all closed many decades ago. Ready mix concrete? An apprenticeship with a latter day Fagin?

More important is the question “how did the students do at the fundamentals, maths and English?” On the first day of every year the first year students were given two tests, one for English and one for maths. The results were used to put the little dears into “sets” for both.

The results came out as an “age”. Perhaps a lad might have a maths “age” of 13.8 and an English age of 12.6 or whatever. The results were fascinating both in terms of the averages and the huge variation between individuals.

Every year the average English “age” was almost exactly one year lower than the standardised average over the country as a whole. Hardly a surprise surely: their language was overwhelmingly influenced by their outside background. There the vocabulary was remarkably restricted and had a high percentage of words starting with "f" (used by the way as a noun, adverb, adjective, verb or whatever).

The average maths age was almost exactly the same as the standardised average for the nation as a whole. Presumably that was because the kids’ maths was essentially a function of their schooling as opposed to their outside school experience.

In maths the variation of the results was very large. If a child got nothing right at all then he was given a maths attainment age of 6.0 years. The highest possible result was 21.0 years. The students were 11 rising 12-years-old when they entered the school and were given the tests. Every year some poor little things only managed 6 point something years, not even able to get to 7 years. Hence mathematically they were little 7-year-old children at best. Also every year a number of boys scored over 15, sometimes 16 and the highest was a result of 17.6 years.

At this stage some will be making all sorts of grunting, snorting and whining noises to the effect that such tests are not valid and should never have been given. Nobody but a fool imagined that the testing was super precise or told everything there was to know about each student's maths. However the results most definitely said two things that were certain.

First, on those tests, whatever they were measuring, the boys were weaker than the national average at English but were average at maths, so they were relatively better at maths than English.

Second, and again on those tests whatever they were testing, the boys varied from being mathematically little tiny boys to mid teenagers. To deny that there is any useful information in the results is simple rubbish. Which raises the question, why would anybody say that? That is easy to answer - because the spread of results is so clear, so huge, that it is impossible even for die-hard education establishment theists to defend their beloved mixed ability groups for maths. So they deny the existence or validity of the data.

Those boys were virtually all from rough and often quite poor backgrounds. Nevertheless they were not “below par” at maths. There is a stack of other evidence that boys, especially from poorer areas, show similar educational behaviour. They are weaker at English than maths, and they are weaker at English than girls from similar areas. A simple example is that a much greater percentage of boys than girls from poorer areas of Melbourne fail their English VCE.

It is my observation over many years and on different continents that where a boy comes from what rather posh Poms would call a “naice” family background his English performance is little different to a girl from a similar “naice” background. For the majority of boys the maths - and by reasonable extension the physical sciences - is an area of comparative advantage i.e. they are no worse than the girls. It is highly probable that such a comparative advantage is most pronounced for boys from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

It is interesting and perhaps disturbing to look at how well or otherwise our children do in the standardised year 3 and year 5 “benchmarks” for both “numeracy” and “reading”. Those results also enable the general public and in particular parents to see what the schools collectively are doing for our children especially the boys. Or should that be what the schools are doing to our children?

The results show the percentage of girls and boys that have “achieved the numeracy (or reading) benchmark”. They merely show how many of them have jumped over a low hurdle, they do not show how well they have done, that is they make no distinction between just scrambling over or clearing the bar with ease.

For the Year 3 “numeracy” test and for the nation as a whole 92.7 per cent of the boys and 92.8 per cent of the girls reached the benchmark. In some states the boys had a higher percentage than the girls, it was vice versa for other States, and overall it is effectively even. For the Year 5 “numeracy” test the percentages were 89.4 for the boys and 89.8 for the girls. There was variation between the States but overall the education systems have started to open a gap to the detriment of the boys. Fortunately the gap is small.

Give 'em time, they're working on it!

For the Year 3 “reading” test and for the nation as a whole 87.9 per cent of the boys and 92.0 per cent of the girls achieved the benchmark. An appalling gap of 4.1.

For the Year 5 “reading” test the percentages were 85.2 for the boys and 89.6 for the girls giving an increased gap of 4.4.

Wonderful! The gap is getting worse. Simple souls, parents and ordinary humans, would think that the system, the people who run it and most of all the “intellectuals” who have “driven” education into it's current condition, are guilty of gross incompetence at best and de facto sexual discrimination at worst. Fat chance.

The establishment will aver that it is the fault of others - politicians who don't provide enough money, administrators, the unions, parents, global warming, the GST, George W., the churches, Bin Laden, Uncle Tom Cobleigh, and above all others the boys themselves.

If only they were girls.

We can all rest assured that the establishment will accept none of the blame on themselves.

As for the image or mirage of the uniformly dear little girl, the establishment, and one suspects some of the numerically dominant female teachers would do well to ponder on the comment made by a female year 9 teacher: “I'm really worried about the boys at this Year level - the girls give them a very hard time. The 'sisterhood' are bitchy, socially and sexually aggressive, and nastily intolerant of the boys' less competent verbal and academic skills.”

There is a horrible amount of truth in that statement. It is time that it was accepted that not all girls are “sugar and spice and all things nice”.

The brute fact is that the vast majority of the establishment have little or no idea about what makes boys, except for the “naice” ones, “tick”. In a way that is understandable, the vast majority of their own children are inevitably “naice”.

There is a well known comment by a 13-year-old boy on what it is like to be a boy in today's schools. Hackneyed or not it bears repeating. The boy was very articulate and as a result his anger and contempt are palpable. He said:

My English teacher wants me to write about my feelings, my History teacher wants me to give my opinions, and my Science teacher wants me to write on my views about the environment! I don't know what my feelings, opinions and views are, and I can't write about them. Anyway, they're none of their bloody business! I hate school! I only wish I could write about the things I'm interested in like sport and military aircraft.

It is an interesting thought that if a teacher touched that boy “inappropriately” the teacher would be charged, jailed and banned from teaching for ever - and rightly so. However if an individual teacher, school or system creates the conditions that lead to comments such as the one above, or worse, then all that happens is that the teacher picks up the normal pay cheque.

With, it seems, the odds stacked against them it is almost a curiosity that boys who study rigorous maths and the physical sciences in Queensland perform as well as the girls of similar general ability.

It almost goes without saying that the advantage to males of taking those subjects will apply to students in all states - unless you think there are fundamental differences between children according to their state.

One possibility is that the relatively good male performance in maths and physical science may be, at least in part, due to the assessment procedures in Queensland. It would appear that they have not (yet?) reached the stage described in a submission to the parliamentary inquiry Boys: getting it right.

Referring to the literacy expectations in maths assessment in South Australia the comment was made that:

The level of nomenclature and sophisticated verbal reasoning skills that are required - to even understand what the problem is - is on average four times greater than what is required in Australian history and English literature.

An unbelievable state of affairs surely for a maths course? Unfortunately not, it is merely a reflection of the establishments domination of State Boards of Study and hence of their assessment systems.

The interests of the disciplines of maths and science appear to chime with the interests of boys, particularly boys from poorer backgrounds in terms of assessment. All authorities that are charged with the responsibility fairly to assess student performance need to ensure that in all existing and particularly in new syllabuses the assessment systems conform to a recommendation from the parliamentary enquiry.

Assessment procedures for maths and sciences must, as a first requirement, provide information about students' knowledge, skills and achievement on the subject, and not be a de facto examination of students' English comprehension and expression.

Pretty obvious you would think. But doesn't the fact that such statements need to be made show the depth of utter rubbish that has been reached.