The problem of educational achievement by boys and young men is a long-standing and big one that has been largely ignored by policymakers.
This new HEPI report considers the consequences for individuals and society and proposes:
- adopting a ‘boy positive’ environment in schools;
- expanding proven grassroots initiatives that help boys;
- putting a bigger focus on gender in regulation;
- holding an investigation by Westminster’s Education Select Committee;
- expanding Scotland’s ‘Widening access to higher education’ enquiry;
- incorporating gender into England’s Curriculum and Assessment Review;
- publishing a strategy for men’s education, with ministerial oversight;
- working to get more men into teaching, care roles and nursing;
- funding new research on under-researched areas affecting boys; and
- tackling rules that disproportionately affect men’s access to education.
As always, this report is an interesting, timely and valuable contribution to the debate. While I don’t disagree with the proposed greater focus on males as a disadvantaged group in the context of access to higher education, it is critical to look at this through the lens of course choice.
As recent research by the Engineering Professors’ Council has shown, women still count for only around 1 in 6 engineering students and, on average, they’re admitted with higher grades than men. This may be due to discriminatory admissions practices, but it’s just as likely to be because as well as fewer women being drawn to engineering, those that are tend to be high-achievers.
Just as males are disadvantaged when it comes to university access, so too are women when it comes to certain highly desirable courses. The disadvantage is probably not in universities making crass or unfair decisions, but in systemic societal assumptions and unequal opportunities that are analogous to those holding back poorer students, those from ethnic minority background and males (among other groups).
If the guidance for university #APPs (Access & Participation Plans) is to be changed to recognise males as a disadvantaged group, it should also be changed to reflect differences in disadvantage across different academic disciplines.
If that doesn’t happen, the easiest way for a university to demonstrate the ‘impact’ of its access measures will not be to make any real difference to disadvantaged people’s lives, but rather to juggle with the availability of places on different courses. I’m not saying this would be a widespread practice, but it’s important that changes do not encourage gaming and unintended, undesirable consequences.