TIL: Perspectives on “Underachieving Boys” in our Education Systems

Rebecca SE Tan

18 October 2022

I am taking a sociology module for the first time, and some of my readings have been really interesting. One of the recent ones I’ve read is this – “Heroes or zeroes? The discursive positioning of ‘underachieving boys’ in English neo‐liberal education policy (Becky Francis, 2006)” You can find the article here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02680930500500278

Reading this article, however, made me feel SO angry. As a brief overview, it talks about the argument to spend more resources on boys (possibly at the expense of girls) because they are falling behind in academic achievement. The triggering part, though, was two of the ways this has been argued for:

1. “Boys will be boys” – the idea that boy’s resistance to “feminine” values of diligence and discipline is a reflection of masculinity and should be celebrated.

2. That boys are disadvantaged because of the feminisation of education – placing the blame on women teachers, feminists and even schoolgirls.

I find these arguments so problematic – not only does it disregard the problems faced by girls in school, I feel it also has terrible implications for boys because it reinforces a form of toxic masculinity and forces a certain stereotype on them. The most obvious critique though, is that these arguments reinforce male privilege – isn't it ironic that when girls have issues at school it's their fault, but when boys have issues it's the girls’ fault too?

The article then continues to explain how this has changed in recent times. If you were hoping for a turn for the better, I’ve come to bring bad news. The reason for this change is the rise of neo-liberalism policies, which comes hand in hand with our capitalist model which entrenches a certain kind of workforce and population. This view has since shifted the responsibility to the individual rather than the socio-economic structures they’re placed in. Hence, even though we have less discourse that we should just accept that, say, boys will just be boys – because boys should also aim to be contributing members to the capitalist system – it feels like we have gone to the other extreme, where the only value of our lives is to be cogs in our capitalist system.

Beyond how terribly meaningless that sounds, there are also far-reaching implications on our view of people who “did not make it”. Rather than any influence by the societal structure or marginalisation, the failure of an individual becomes the fault of their own – that they did simply not work hard enough. In the case of this article, the author highlights the plight of working class African Caribbean and Pakistani boys. This reality highlights our need to check our biases from time to time and ask ourselves this revealing question: do we believe the poor deserve what they get? When we place "meritocracy" on a high pedestal, we absolve the failings of institutions or structures and shifts the blame onto the "undeserving individual". Even as we champion values like hard work and determination, we must be prudent in recognising that people do not start on even-playing grounds. Indeed, a critical analysis of intersectionality, such as that between race, class, and gender, is needed to have a more informed perspective on our education systems.

How do you think we should we go on from here? Let me know in the comments below!