Chapter 8: The Education Lie
 
 

1999 Version

In Education, as in every other part of Society, Feminists have looked for female "victims", and they were able to come up with some. We could say about Feminists and female victims more or less what what the famous French writer and crusading campaigner Voltaire said about men and God: if female victims don't exist where Feminists look for them, they just invent them!

One myth that was circulating -- and probably still is circulating -- around the education systems of Western countries was that boys dominated the teacher's attention in coeducational classrooms. In many countries, this myth was no doubt promulgated at taxpayer expense, and at the expense of the union dues that male and female teachers paid to their unions. A lot of hand-wringing ensued.

Presumably, the idea was that girls suffered as a consequence, though I have never seen anyone actually claim this. I have had a lot of experience of Feminist stupidity, but this has to be a classic example: Feminists made a song and dance about this supposed dominance by boys, and don't seem to have looked to see if it actually did anyone any harm!! It is quite obvious that the introvert (male or female) who quietly gets on with their work might actually have more time to do a good job of learning than someone who was always hogging the teacher's time for some reason. It would have been useful to have had this aspect of the matter investigated!

However, an Australian Professor of Education, Eileen Byrne, visited New Zealand in 1994, and I went and heard her speak at the Ministry of Women's Affairs -- no less! Professor Byrne holds the Chair of Education in Policy Studies at the University of Queensland, Australia. She debunked several myths about girls in education, including this one:

"It's not true in mixed classrooms that all boys dominate the discourse. A massive survey of 120 of those studies that are most often cited showed that, in a third of those surveyed, neither sex dominated and in another third, the difference was so slight as to be not a basis for policy-making. In the remaining third, yes it was true that girls did not dominate alt al and boys did, but, it was three boys who did, or two boys, one boy. Most of the boys don't. That is a question of classroom management. It is a matter of good teaching. In the first place, it's bad for any three students to have excessive air time and dominate, be they male or female. In each of those cases there was always a girl or two who attempted to dominate. Smart Alec girls exist too" (PPTA News, Vol. 15 No.3, April 1994).

One problem that affects boys is the growing feminisation of the teaching profession. According to an article on page E2 of the Sunday Star-Times of March 10, 1996, Australian Psychologist Steve Biddulph reckons that a shortage of male primary teachers is producing boys who "can't conceive of learning as a masculine activity."[1]

The boys' and men's side of the story needs to be told. If more boys than girls try to hog the teacher's attention in a minority of classrooms, then that may well be because most of their teachers are female and they are attracted to them sexually. Feminist teachers, supported by their unions, have been making such a song and dance about the supposed problem of women and girls that boys (quite rightly!) have felt negelected, and even demonised. This is not good for their morale, self-esteem or (in all probability) academic performance. To give you one tiny example of bias in schools: there is one coed school where I found that the library catalogue listed over 300 books on "women" and "girls", and fewer than 30 on "men" and "boys"!

In addition, Massey University lecturer Sarah Farquhar was reported in the lead article of the Education Weekly (Vol. 8 No. 284, Monday, 3rd February 1997) as having carried out a study which showed that men were being discriminated against in early childhood teaching. Fifty-five percent of male teachers had had experiences of being treated as an actual or potential child abuser -- because of all the publicity surrounding a couple of cases of alleged child-abuse. This scared men away from the profession, and led employers to discriminate against male applicants for positions.

One of these high-profile cases of alleged child-abuse is still highly controversial. What we may have here is a scenario where man-hating Feminists have been pushing an anti-child-sex-abuse campaign to the extent that they have managed to get innocent men convicted and lots of men unemployed in their preferred profession. This seems to be what has been happening in all Western countries in recent years.

But the excessive numbers of female teachers may have even more sinister effects on the education of boys. Here is a quotation from the abstract of a research article:[2]

"These comparisons revealed systematic tendencies for teachers to evaluate the performance of girls more favourably than the performance of boys.... in the areas of reading and written expression teachers showed consistent tendencies to evaluate the performance of girls more favourably than the boys even after adjustment for gender differences in objective test scores were (sic) made."

"It is also possible that the tendency for teachers to evaluate girls more favourably is, in part, an unintended consequence of mis-application of gender equity principles."

Thomas (1993) points out that, at kindergarten and primary school, girls out-perform boys -- and this may be a result of the preponderance of female teachers at that level. He cites surveys which showed that teachers consistently praised girls more than boys, and criticised boys more than girls.

Research evidence from UCLA supports this. When kindergarten children learned reading from a self-teaching machine, the boys did better than the girls. But when they were taught to read by a woman teacher, the girls did better than the boys.

It is now becoming increasingly common for the news media to report that girls are doing better academically than boys:

In Britain, the findings of Professor Richard Kimbell, of the University of London, on this topic have received international publicity.

According to an article on Page 7 of the COSA Newsletter of December 1996, 3 (11), the Christchurch3 Health and Development Study has found that, in all educational comparisons, boys aged 8 to 18 years did worse than girls.

One further reason for this may well be that curricula, teaching methods, and assessment methods are systematically being altered to favour girls over boys -- whether this is the result of a deliberate conspiracy or the accidental result of the general feminisation of the Education systems in many countries, is hard to say.

For example, competition, which boys seem thrive on more than girls do, is now Politically Incorrect, and is being discouraged in the education system. Continuous assessment is steadily replacing examinations in some countries[4]. Continuous assessment removes the anonymity of written examinations and allows full scope for teachers' anti-boy bias. A further factor is the banning of corporal punishment. Corporal punishment has a salutory effect on the behaviour and attitude of some boys, and its removal from the school system is seen by some politicians as a major reason for the increase in suspensions from schools in such countries as New Zealand.

Specific subject areas may be subject to the same trend, though I don't have much information on this at the moment. According to an article in the New Scientist of 5 April 1997 ("How Speech is Built from Memories", by Robert Pool),

"Neuroscientists in the US ... suggest that women keep more words in memory than men.... men are more likely than women to have difficulty with regular verbs after diseases that damage the procedural memory. But both have problems forming the past tense of made-up words such as 'spuff' ('spuffed'). This suggests... that women store more words in memory than men, and fall back on the rules only when presented with unfamiliar words."

2002 Version

CHAPTER 3
THE EDUCATION LIES

In education, as in every other part of society, Feminists have looked for and found female "victims." To paraphrase what Voltaire said about men and God: if female victims don't exist where Feminists look for them, they just invent them!

One myth they are still circulating is that boys dominate the teachers' attention in coeducational classrooms. In many countries, this myth was no doubt promulgated at taxpayer expense, and at the expense of the union dues male and female teachers paid to their unions. Regardless of who paid the bill, the result was the same: a lot of hand-wringing.

Primarily, they contend girls suffer as a consequence of (slightly) lower participation rates, and even when the data clearly indicate boys are worse off than girls, they still find a way to make girls the greater victims:

Department of Education research also shows that boys repeat grades and drop out more than girls. Yet girls who repeat a grade are more likely to drop out of school than boys. (American Association of University Women 1999 www.aauw.org/1000/eseamyth.html)

I have had a lot of experience with Feminist stupidity in academic fields, but this has to be a classic example: they make a big fuss about the supposed dominance by boys, and ignore who is really harmed! It should be obvious that the introvert (male or female) who quietly gets on with their work might actually have more time to do a good job of learning than someone who was always hogging the teacher's time for some reason. It would have been useful for them to investigate this aspect of the matter.

Ironically, when Eileen Byrne, who holds the Chair of Education in Policy Studies at the University of Queensland, Australia, visited New Zealand in 1994, she debunked several myths about girls in education, including this one:

“It's not true in mixed classrooms that all boys dominate the discourse. A massive survey of 120 of those studies that are most often cited showed that, in a third of those surveyed, neither sex dominated and in another third, the difference was so slight as to be not a basis for policy-making. In the remaining third, yes it was true that girls did not dominate at all and boys did, but, it was three boys who did, or two boys, one boy. Most of the boys don't. That is a question of classroom management. It is a matter of good teaching. In the first place, it's bad for any three students to have excessive air time and dominate, be they male or female. In each of those cases there was always a girl or two who attempted to dominate. Smart Alec girls exist too.” (PPTA News, Vol. 15 No.3, April 1994).

To give you one example of bias in schools: in one coed school I found the library catalogue listed over 300 books on "women" and "girls" but fewer than 30 on "men" and "boys"! I know of teachers who automatically assume that all women are kind and well-meaning – and that men and boys are the opposite. If I try to put pro-men items onto the agenda for meetings of my teacher union branch, they sometimes get put below "General Business", so that I have little or no time to discuss them – or someone comes in late to the meeting and make a lot of noise, so as to disrupt my presentation.

In one study, Massey University lecturer Sarah Farquhar found that men were discriminated against in early childhood teaching. (Education Weekly, Vol. 8 No. 284, Monday, February 3, 1997.) Moreover, 55 percent of male teachers report being treated as actual or potential child abusers because of all the publicity surrounding a couple of cases of alleged child-abuse. This scared men away from the profession, and now many employers discriminate against male applicants for teaching positions.

Thanks to the Feminists' anti-male agenda, courts are convicting innocent men and, in many professions, few men are able to find employment.[2] But the excessive numbers of female teachers may have even more sinister effects on the education of boys, according to one study:

These comparisons revealed systematic tendencies for teachers to evaluate the performance of girls more favourably than the performance of boys.... in the areas of reading and written expression teachers showed consistent tendencies to evaluate the performance of girls more favourably than the boys even after adjustment for gender differences in objective test scores were (sic) made.[3]
The authors of this study believe the reason for this bias is that teachers unconsciously included an evaluation of the students' behaviour and personality in their assessment of the students' work. They also say:

It is also possible that the tendency for teachers to evaluate girls more favourably is, in part, an unintended consequence of misapplication of gender equity principles.

Thomas (1993) points out that, in kindergarten and primary school, girls out-perform boys and this may be a result of the preponderance of female teachers at that level. He cites surveys showing teachers consistently praise girls more than boys, and criticise boys more than girls. Research from UCLA supports this.[4] When kindergarten children learned reading from a self-teaching machine, the boys did better than the girls. But when they were taught to read by a woman teacher, the girls did better than the boys.

It is increasingly common for the news media to report girls are doing better academically than boys. At the beginning of July 1999 in New Zealand, there was a conference in Waitakere City (in Greater Auckland, New Zealand) on Boys in Schools, following which the Education Review Office published a report about it. Then, on July 29th, 1999, Susan Wood, of the Holmes TV programme, interviewed the Minister of Education, Nick Smith, and the Principal of Scots College, Wellington, who said more men needed to be brought into primary (elementary) teaching, and that they needed to be reassured that unsubstantiated allegations of sex abuse or sexual harassment would not ruin their careers.

In Britain, the findings of Professor Richard Kimbell, of the University of London, on this topic have received international publicity. And "men have become the new underclass at university in Australia," according to the article, "Men: the blondes of the nineties," in the NZ Education Review, November 4, 1998.

Fergusson and Horwood (1997) found that, in all educational comparisons, boys aged 8 to 18 years did worse than girls. Their data would be compatible with a conclusion that teacher bias against boys is partly to blame. The Principal of Motueka High School noted many boys said "teachers favour girls over boys" (The New Zealand Education Gazette of 14 June 1999, page 4), though he didn't agree with them.

When girls say such things, Feminists rise up in arms to support them, but they were boys and the Principal did not take them seriously. I think we need to take these boys at their word – after all, they are the consumers of the educational process and their feelings and opinions deserve to be taken seriously. If they aren't, then that itself is an indication of bias against boys.

In my experience as a teacher in New Zealand, anti-male bias is so entrenched among my colleagues that they are incapable of recognising it when they see it. In one department I was teaching in, a female teacher had a prominent sign at her desk, which read, "Men can't do anything." I complained to the Head of Department, who got the teacher to remove it. No doubt, the teacher had thought of it as a joke, but where in the Western World could a male teacher have a sign at his desk saying, "Women can't do anything " - on the pretext that it was just a joke? A senior female (and Feminist) colleague once remarked how a proportion of six females to two males at a union committee meeting was "excellent gender balance" (she later received further promotion), and the male chairperson of a teachers' regional union meeting said men were "too stupid to handle combination locks" (on toilet doors). Neither he nor anyone else smiled. When I raised the issue later at an executive meeting of my teacher union branch, most of the men just laughed! As far as leftist teachers are concerned, sexism against men and boys is okay. Only sexism against women warrants concern.

If I hadn't mentioned these three issues to others, no one would have noticed – they are just typical of the day-to-day misandry (man-hatred) endemic in the teaching profession. Presumably, that is why Sue Wood of the Holmes TV programme had to go to the Principal of an upmarket private school to find someone who would speak out publicly in defence of boys (July 29, 1999).

One further reason for this may well be that curricula, teaching methods and assessment methods are systematically being altered to favour girls over boys – whether this is the result of a deliberate conspiracy or the accidental result of the general feminisation of the education systems in many countries, is hard to say.

For example, boys seem to thrive on competition more than girls, but competition is politically incorrect and educators discourage it. Continuous assessment is steadily replacing examinations in some countries.[5] This removes the anonymity of written examinations and allows full scope for teachers' anti-boy bias. Another factor is the banning of corporal punishment, when corporal punishment has had a salutary effect on the behaviour and attitude of some boys (in my experience as a teacher). Many politicians in New Zealand believe removing it from the school system is a major reason for the number of suspensions of boys. About three quarters of suspensions involve boys. (New Zealand Education Gazette, June 14, 1999, page 5.)

Specific subject areas may also be subject to the same trend. According to an article in the New Scientist, April 5, 1997 ("How Speech is Built from Memories," by Robert Pool):

"Neuroscientists in the US ... suggest that women keep more words in memory than men.... men are more likely than women to have difficulty with regular verbs after diseases that damage the procedural memory. But both have problems forming the past tense of made-up words such as 'spuff' ('spuffed'). This suggests... that women store more words in memory than men, and fall back on the rules only when presented with unfamiliar words."

However, three encouraging educational developments have occurred recently in Australasia: The National Executive of the Post-Primary Teachers' Association (PPTA) now has a designated member with specific responsibility for Boys' Issues – and I was elected to the position of Men's Contact of The Correspondence School branch of the Post Primary Teachers' Association, with responsibility for Boys' Issues and Men's Issues in parallel with the Women's Contact's long-standing responsibility for Girls' Issues and Women's Issues.

Both these developments took effect from the beginning of 1999, but by the beginning of the year 2000 my hopes had been dashed, to some extent. The first man chosen by the PPTA to promote Boys' Issues finally revealed himself to be a Male Feminist (in an article in the PPTA News, 14 February 2000), and I resigned my branch position in 1999 when I was unable to get support from the members to fight a management decision to advertise for students in a periodical for women, but not in any periodical for men. Susequent TV advertisements also targeted programmes typically viewed by women, rather than sports programmes, for example. However, I believe that Male Feminists will not be able to monopolise such positions in the long term.

In 1999, the University of Tasmania Students' Union voted to create the position of "Men's Officer." This brought about a Feminist backlash, of course, and I was told by that Students' Union's Education Officer (a woman) that the referendum had been declared unconstitutional and would take place a second time, at which time she was confident that the decision would be reversed.

Like Henry Ford, I don't like making predictions – especially about the future ! Nevertheless, I am optimistic that the crown of victimhood will be wrested from the heads of girls.
 
 

Last Update: 28 December 2004

©Peter Zohrab