https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/sep/01/girls-boys-schools-gender-gap#comments

Teacher of course do this bias too in all aspects of education, predicted grades, designating sets, which paper to enter, who is awarded prizes (look at the unreal gender gap that was created last year when teachers were allowed to decide what grades students get without taking exams - reflecting sexist teacher bias):

http://empathygap.uk/?p=3494

And the other things mentioned, in earlier posts e.g. teachers mark boys lower for identical work to girls etc:

https://youtu.be/G7OojK6ZG2c?t=356

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/kbxzlo/teachers_mark_girls_higher_for_identical_work_to/

Parents need to keep a careful eye out for anti boy workshops in schools. Recent one e.g. asking all boys to stand up and apologise for their sins e.g. gained media attention and outrage by parents.

If your school does girl sessions for STEM or sports, this is great and to be encouraged. Ask your schools what they are doing gor boys also. Are they trying to increase boys entrollment in college? The gender gap in exlcusions, leaving school with no qualifications etc.

Gender equality is great, but it needs to mean gender equality. Do not exlude boys from the good programmes you have for girls, and do not poison these programmes with false anti male ant boy idealogy.

Here is a great report by Save the Children, that rarely actually looks at boys in educations very thoroughly. It has some great insights into just how pervasive this problem is. Sadly it doesnt mention the teacher bias much, but it covers most other things.

https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/content/dam/global/reports/the_lost_boys_report.pdf

Here is a great comment by a user:

Imagine a 14 yr old girl, all her teachers were mostly men. In her country girls are marked less than boys for the same work. In her country girls are much more likely to be disciplined, to be expelled, and not to finish school. In her country, almost all primary caregivers are men. Fewer women than men have gone to college for at least 40 years. But of course the efforts to get more men into college march steadily on. She is surrounded by Boy Power and The Future is Male! Academic journals will print anything that denigrates her sex, even if its something Hitler wrote as long as jews are replaced with women.

(and this bias exists in almost every single institution...she will receive harsher sentences for the same crime, she is about 10x more likely to be shot than a man, she is much more likely to be a victim of a violent crime, she will die sooner, less will be spent on her healthcare, there will be fewer programs for her across every single government agency. She will commute further, she will work longer, she will be 20x more likely to die on the job, etc etc)

But despite those facts, she goes to school to learn about how everything is setup to benefit her. About how bad her gender is, how toxic so many of its traits are, how oppressive it has been throughout all of space and time. That despite her obvious reality, she lives in a world of abundant privilege. See come to find out, everyone actually treats her better because of she is a she. Theres no shit, a Boys Are Wonderful effect.. like scientifically fucking proven....but nonono its girls that are treated the best. Theres no data to confirm this (quite the opposite).... its just so. Theres really no data for almost any of this at all.

Further, that she needs to be an ally to boys and help them all she can. Even though a not so quiet part of them really do chant "Killallwomen" and "female tears sustain me"....just ignore that.

And when she raises any point, however timid about how none of this matches her lived experiences.....well she is struggling with her femininity and God help us if she finds a video on the internet by a professor who may say she isnt a goddamn monster.

What a backwards fucking world that would be huh?

I will also add, rough and tumble play and rough housing - the type of play fathers do - is critical for boys and girls development, it is especially important in boys.... its has really wide reaching benifits, e.g. confidence, emotional regulation, behaviour management.... this is done by father usually and mothers usually do not do this type of play.

The combination of fatherlessness, less fathers in childcare, and absence of men in teaching as well as the health and safety culture in education (bad combination with an already feminised work force too) all adds up to really missing out for boys.

Here is importance of rough housing:

https://youtu.be/QAbkUpVfkTs

https://youtu.be/ryVSS0q2FCM

This is also a tip for all the fathers and uncles etc out there.... this is excellent to know for your sons/ daughters etc that thist type of play is really good for them

I am much more hands on in play with nephew now and I notice how easy it is to manage his behaviour now, how much he aboslutely adores playing with me now, whereas previously no one could get him still to change clothes (well his father could!), go in car seat, I can easily do it now, his behaviour is good etc.

Comment in Guardian post linked above:

To clarify a few points raised:

- In our first study, (not me im copying/pasting this) we found that girls from Reception (aged 4 or 5) and boys from Year 3 (aged 7 or 8) thought that girls were superior students to boys in every way. This included perceptions of conduct, motivation, achievement, and even intellectual ability. This latter finding surprised us - we find it rather shocking and sad that boys this age have picked up this self-effacing stereotype.- In addition to this stereotype, our first study uncovered what's known as a "meta-stereotype": not only do kids think girls are better students, they believe adults think so, too.- These "meta-stereotypes" are important because previous research has shown that they can be self-fulfilling. Kids can become anxious because they are aware that they are expected to perform badly, on the basis of the social group to which they belong (e.g., race, class, and in this case, gender). This is know as "stereotype threat" . As a result, "experimental groups" of kids who are reminded of such expectations do worse than "control groups" of kids who are not.- Indeed, this is what we found in our second study. Being reminded of the general expectancy that girls will do better harmed boys' performance in SATs-type tests. Notably, it did NOT boost girls' performance. From this, we can provisionally conclude that the stereotypes in question harm boys, academically, without benefitting girls. By implication, undoing or neutralizing these expectations ought (in principle) to help boys, without compromising girls' achievement.- We did NOT examine where these expectations and anxieties come from. We have no data to suggest, for example, that it is teachers' fault. On the contrary, in our experience teachers bend over backwards to be inclusive and fair. Rather, we are inclined to believe that widely shared social stereotypes of gender are more important. Pre-school and out-of-school experiences are likely to be very powerful shapers of gender stereotypes.- Nonetheless, schools are an obvious place to start if we want to break the "spell" of the stereotype that boys are inferior students. One thing that we are beginning to try is simply communicating to boys and girls that we do not expect them to perform differently. (Note: this is not the same thing as telling them that they are the same in any other way, be it culturally or biologically.) In any case we hope our research will stimulate debate and especially creative solutions to the problem that boys seem to be facing.- Note that we would not suggest for a second that stereotypes are the only reason that on average, boys tend to struggle at most age groups and in most subjects, relative to girls. We are just trying to identify one piece in the puzzle.- Also, of course, in some subjects and in some contexts boys go on to do better, as in the highest levels of Nobel/Fields lists. Many (including us, as it happens) would also argue that later in life, men are advantaged relative to women. It's tempting therefore to conclude that the gender gap at school is not a big deal. But our view is that any arbitrary and avoidable limitation on the potential of any group in society ultimately costs us all. It is also our view - a point of value rather than science - that we should not view gender relations as a zero-sum game; that men's underachievement is a kind of victory or compensation for women, for example. And therefore, we find it a problem that although men are over-represented in many fields of excellence, they are also over-represented in the field of academic failure. We hope our research will one day help give boys a lift and therefore help everyone.- That said, we don't claim that our work is ground-breaking - we are simply applying the well-demonstrated concept of "stereotype threat" to try to help understand what's causing boys and girls to perform differently. It's "applied" rather than "pure" research. And certainly, our work says little or nothing about whether girls and boys should be schooled separately, taught in the same way, or by men, and so on.- However, there is one general moral that I hope people take away from our research, as from much of the social psychological research that it follows. Stereotypes (of say race, class, and gender) have a way - myriad ways - of fulfilling themselves. They don't require that parents, teachers, or the media explicitly tell a certain group that certain things are expected of them. Thus we should not conclude from the poor performance, disadvantaged position, bad conduct or even low IQ scores of any group that it is innately or inevitably inferior.