Girls and Physics. It's too hard for them. ?

Jane43

Joseanne

But growstuff she is talking about her own school which is co - ed. She is referring to "our girls" and "they" means her pupils. She knows their wishes and their capabilities.

You are right, she was on Politics Live today and said that the quote in the news was about the pupils in her school but before that she spoke about schools in general for about 20 minutes and this part of what she had to say has been ignored.

Did you actually watch the interview? I linked to it before. She waffled on about education in general, but didn't address the issues.

She also lied when she said that they have been trying to do something about the issue with girls opting for physics at Michaela. In the original interview, she blethered on about poetry and philosophy and said she was relaxed about girls not opting for physics.

I thought it was funny in the interview where she said she wasn't a politician and she hadn't planned what she was going to say. Does she seriously mean that she hadn't prepared for that meeting? Not really much point in her being there then.

She might be a bit peculiar in how she expresses herself, and maybe she wasn't expecting to say what she did, but why tear someone apart who is naking an effort to improve the enjoyment of learning in her own school? She has apologised unlike many would have.

*making not naking .... unless she was laying herself bare!

She has not apologised, she has told everyone they misunderstood her.

And she said girls didn't fancy Physics because of the hard maths. Not the boys. Just the girls. Which she obviously still thinks is true. Maybe her school is lovely, I have no idea. But when it comes to STEM, she's living in the fifties.

Joseanne

She might be a bit peculiar in how she expresses herself, and maybe she wasn't expecting to say what she did, but why tear someone apart who is naking an effort to improve the enjoyment of learning in her own school? She has apologised unlike many would have.

Because she is the national Commissioner for Social Mobility, she was unprepared for the interview and lacked coherency.

This is what the Women and Equalities Committee wrote when she was appointed:

"While we admire and value robustness, as Chair of the Social Mobility Commission she will need to demonstrate her ability to listen to, and work collegiately with, colleagues and stakeholders with whom she will not always agree. We note her relatively narrow field of experience in secondary education. Her answers to our questions invariably returned to the importance of education, particularly the setting of high expectations and standards of behaviour, and parental responsibility. Her vision for social mobility beyond the sphere of education was much less clear."

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmwomeq/782/78203.htm#_idTextAnchor008

It's concerning that somebody whose role is to increase social mobility appears so ignorant of issues outside her own school and then lies about what she said.

volver

She has not apologised, she has told everyone they misunderstood her.

And she said girls didn't fancy Physics because of the hard maths. Not the boys. Just the girls. Which she obviously still thinks is true. Maybe her school is lovely, I have no idea. But when it comes to STEM, she's living in the fifties.

Rosalind Franklin lived in the fifties. I wonder if anybody told her that maths was hard.

Marie Curie was even earlier.

Just to be clear, this is like saying girls are better at hoovering than boys, that it's a natural thing. It's that bad.

She said there was research to show girls find maths hard (there isn't) and that it was natural that the girls found maths hard, but not the boys.

If you don't find that weird, where have you been for 50 years?

Or Marić Einstein.

volver

Just to be clear, this is like saying girls are better at hoovering than boys, that it's a natural thing. It's that bad.

She said there was research to show girls find maths hard (there isn't) and that it was natural that the girls found maths hard, but not the boys.

If you don't find that weird, where have you been for 50 years?

She said "they", but never said who "they" are. She might as well have been quoting a tabloid.

The original interview was an absolute disgrace. She's supposed to be working as Commissioner for six days a week and had been called as an "expert", but it appeared she hadn't prepared or researched anything.

Even if "they" meant her own pupils, she was then asked why the girls avoided physics but not boys. She said it was natural that girls found maths hard, and there was research that showed that.

I'm still speechless.

If you don't find that weird, where have you been for 50 years?
I have not once in this dicussion queried the research or disgreed. In fact over the last 50 years I myself have been part of a national child development study where we have all regularly taken NFER type mathematical tests. I am fully aware that the results showed that girls performed better in Maths and Science.
I am talking about the constant desire to not see good in an energetic and inspiring educationalist just because. Same old story.

Sorry. I'm off out the door now for my first lesson at 9.35 am. I will try to refrain from telling my girl pupils that Maths is a national disease.

What, just because she is completely wrong about the thing that has defined my working life, but won't admit it?

This has nothing to do with her as an educationalist. She may run a fine school, I don't know. But I'll say this again; she knows nothing about STEM.

Joseanne you could tell them how unnatural they are.

volver

Even if "they" meant her own pupils, she was then asked why the girls avoided physics but not boys. She said it was natural that girls found maths hard, and there was research that showed that.

I'm still speechless.

I wasn't very clear. The "they" in her interview were the people who said girls find maths hard.

Joseanne

^If you don't find that weird, where have you been for 50 years?^
I have not once in this dicussion queried the research or disgreed. In fact over the last 50 years I myself have been part of a national child development study where we have all regularly taken NFER type mathematical tests. I am fully aware that the results showed that girls performed better in Maths and Science.
I am talking about the constant desire to not see good in an energetic and inspiring educationalist just because. Same old story.

An educationalist? What a quaint term! What's the same old story?

You have no idea what I think of her methodology at Michaela, but she wan't representing her school at the Standing Committee meeting. She had been called as an alleged "expert" on girls and STEM subjects.

volver

Joseanne you could tell them how unnatural they are.

They should probably be learning how to cook from scratch and do household budgeting. That's only "natural", doncha know?!

What I love about these threads is it makes me go away and do a bit of research before I form an opinion. Well I wouldn't have her as an expert on STEM or Social mobility, she doesn't do herself any favours and I strongly disagree with some of what she says. However, her schools results are there and actually if you judge the school by academic results, she's got something right. I read something about what the pupils thought and although her rules may seem draconian , they feel safe in the school. I wish it were the same for all pupils! I also like the focus on kindness and gratitude. The intake of pupils is interesting, 48% are disadvantaged, 30% are entitled to FSM, 14% SEN, 59% have English as a second language but 44% are above average at KS2 attainment. KS2 attainment is a lot higher than many state schools but nowhere near as high as the selective schools either in the state or private sector. You may not like the isolation of pupils who's parents have not paid for lunches, but it is part of the home school contract and at least the pupils get something to eat, unlike those schools that have canteen type facilities and it doesn't seem to be the "blunt" tool as described by the media (is it ever?) I can see why parents would want to send their children to a school like this, it sounds a hell of a lot better than some schools.

Well thats all very creditable but she was appearing at a committee meeting about STEM, in her role as commissioner for social mobility, so what she said matters.

I was curious as well so I looked up the school. She doesn't exclude so apologies for my earlier selection. She does however select. But the biggest influence, and I do hope she will be telling the government how important this is, is the size of the school. She only has 840 children and her staff pupil ratio is 12to1. There is some evidence that smaller schools help the most disadvantaged and of course smaller classes do the same.
Her lack of success with girls and physics might also be to do with her teaching method. She favours learning by rote and regular testing which may not suit either the girl or the subject. If she was at all a good educationalist she would be looking at that.

Some girls and some boys may find maths for physics too difficult for a variety of reasons (such as limited ability or poor teaching) but her generalization about all girls is complete rubbish.

I haven't listened to the speech made by Katharine Birbalsingh so I can't comment on what she said or did not say.

I would think training in cooking and budgeting an excellent idea, for everyone, plus a little instruction in carpentry and car maintenance, which I believe is delivered in many schools.

I find Educationalist a perfectly acceptable term.

In a later article Birbalsingh wrote: 'Perhaps it is because girls are more inclined to be empathetic while boys are more systematic (the reason why they do not pursue physics).
I have absolutely no idea whether that is so, but a current example on here would certainly lend credence to that theory.