VIEWS From the pen of… MARK ROBERTS


How do we stop boys falling further behind?


In our regular series highlighting authors in education, we’re delighted this month to hear from MARK ROBERTS, author of The Boy Question, out now (Routledge £16.99).


For at least two decades, schools have been attempting to crack the conundrum that is ‘The Boy Question’. How can we close the gender attainment gap? What can we do to tackle anti-school attitudes displayed by some boys? Why are my efforts to motivate boys in class not working? Since Covid’s abrupt interruption of schooling, the urgency of these questions appears to have intensified. Numerous studies and reports seem to confirm the anecdotal fears of many teachers: boys have fallen even further behind during lockdown. When I started out as a shiny-shoed NQT back in 2008, the buzzword


around boys was ‘engagement’. Largely, it remains the key focus for teachers of boys. Yet, well-intentioned efforts to appeal to boys by making learning more relevant to their interests have backfired disastrously. Shoehorning sport into physics lessons, or trying to enthuse switched-off boys through competitive activities in literacy lessons has lowered expectations of boys’ academic potential, and left them languishing behind girls. And don’t get me started on the mythical belief that boys are kinaesthetic learners and therefore need to move handle things and move around the room to make learn most effectively. Stereotypical attitudes such as these continue to hold boys back educationally. Instead of counter-productive “boy-friendly” curricula and clichéd


inspirational assemblies, the evidence points to an alternative way to motivate boys to succeed in the classroom. In my new book, The Boy Question, I argue that a radical re-think is required to encourage boys to strive to meet their true academic potential. It’s time to interrogate our attitudes about the boys we teach and consider the messages we give them about the purpose of education. We know, for instance, that girls are more likely to be intrinsically


motivated. As a result, they are more likely to see learning as an end in itself, and to view knowing more about a subject as inherently satisfying. By contrast, boys are more likely to be motivated by extrinsic factors, such as sanctions and rewards, or beating their peers to gain personal recognition. Where students derive their motivation from might seem unimportant to teachers but it’s actually of vital significance. Because the link between intrinsic motivation and achievement is strong, while being extrinsically driven often results in boys avoiding challenging work, lacking resilience and self-sabotaging if they believe they are going to fail. Little wonder then that girls are generally doing better than boys. Teachers therefore need to be very careful about how we frame the


purpose of the activities that we set, how we give feedback and praise to boys, and how we talk about targets and aspirations. To enable boys to do well, we have to focus on subject-specific success, which will motivate them far better than generic interventions. We also need to teach them how to ask for help and model strategies that will develop their self-regulation. Most significantly, we must emphasise to boys that frustration and failure are essential steps on the road to higher attainment.


The Boy Question by Mark Roberts is out 6th July (Routledge, £16.99). Save 20% through the Routledge website with discount code APR20.


July/August 2021 BRITISH EDUCATIONAL SUPPLIERS ASSOCIATION (BESA)


Trust teachers and school leaders to know what is right for their students


In her regular column for Education Today this month, JULIA GARVEY, Deputy Director General at school suppliers’ association BESA, discusses how best to help those students whose learning has been significantly affected by school closures.


I recently attended an All Party Parliamentary Group meeting where we were discussing the Education Recovery Plan and how best to support teachers as they work to help students recover any learning loss from disruptions caused by the pandemic. There are an increasing number of reports showing that disadvantaged pupils have been most significantly affected and those with special educational needs have experienced a double whammy of loss. So how best to help? Is it through government mandated and funded


initiatives such as the National Tutoring Programme, or would head teachers simply prefer an injection of cash that could be used to prioritise the support measures they deem suitable for their schools? Ignoring for now the government vs school-based decision making hot


potato, one of the discussion points around the table was the need for efficacy; for schools and suppliers to prove that the initiatives, products and services they are choosing to support catch up are actually living up to their promise. Ofsted have long looked for evidence that programmes purchased with


Pupil Premium funding have resulted in demonstrable improvements for student outcomes, but the same approach has not been applied to catch up funding. There is an argument to say it should be. Despite this, teachers should ask this of their suppliers. Before investing


in any new piece of technology or a new curriculum resources, shouldn’t we ask how we know this will do what it says on the tin? When it comes to education technology (EdTech) the majority agrees. The DfE’s EdTech Strategy of 2019 also discusses the need for products and services to be ‘evidence-based’. The vast majority of the suppliers we work with have the same


concerns. They want to know that the materials they have produced are going to be effective, and they want to gather evidence and case studies from schools to build that proof. They want to test their products and see what impact they have and look for ways in which they can be improved, in order to better deliver for students. At BESA we agree that efficacy is vital which is why we are part of the


Educate Accelerator Programme. Funded by the ERDF, the programme aims to ensure that EdTech products live up to their promises. We do this in partnership with Educate Ventures, who use their expertise in educational research to support, train and mentor the EdTech companies in the development of research skills, ensuring products made for teaching and learning really do work. Once graduated from the programme, companies can use the Educate logo as a visible marker that they can back up their claims with facts. However, we also know that there will always be a degree of natural


scepticism around any claims made by providers themselves, that teachers will always trust other teachers to tell them the truth about what works and what doesn’t. In the absence of independent analysis, peer recommendation comes a close second which is why platforms such as LendED.org.uk which is founded on school case studies and peer reviews, are so popular. All of which leads me back to the initial question of how best to help


those students whose learning has been significantly affected by school closures? By trusting teachers and school leaders to know what is right for their students, and by supporting them in those choices by offering clear evidence of the ways our products, services and platforms could help.


Julia Garvey Deputy Director General, BESA www.Besa.org.uk www.educateventures.com www.LendED.org.uk


www.education-today.co.uk 13


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44