Last week’s column discussed the growing number of young men aged 15 to 24 years who are not in employment or full-time education.

I made the claim that the education system works better for girls than boys, and promised a follow-up column on the topic.

The big risk in writing about gender and education is viewing education as a zero-sum game. If boys are meant to do better, girls must fare worse. I think that’s total nonsense. A functioning democracy must always aim to provide the best possible education to absolutely everyone. We want to equip as many people as possible with useful life and job skills.

First let’s find some proof that the status quo isn’t working for boys.

Status quo isn’t working

Data on educational outcomes (academic performance) shows that girls outperform boys on every level of education. On average, girls outperform boys in most subjects. This isn’t a purely Australian phenomenon as PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) results see girls score higher than boys in reading and writing around the world.

Boys perform slightly better in maths and science. It is also alarming that Australian PISA scores in reading, mathematics, and science have declined over the past 20+ years.

Australian NAPLAN (National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy) results indicate that girls outperform boys in literacy tests. NAPLAN data sees boys perform slightly better in numeracy tests, but in all four other categories girls end up on top.

Now let’s move on to behavioural insights to see why girls might outperform boys.

Girls generally show higher levels of engagement in the classroom and better compliance with school rules. This results in better academic outcomes. Boys record higher rates of behavioural issues. They are, for example, more likely to be diagnosed with conditions like ADHD.

Even though some experts argue that since ADHD is diagnosed based on behavioural symptoms (such as inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity) that are also common in children with other difficulties (anxiety, trauma, or old-fashioned boredom in school) we might currently experience an over-diagnosis of the condition.

Interestingly, this meta-analysis suggests that younger children in a year level were more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, suggesting over-diagnosis due to relative immaturity. Regardless of the formal diagnosis, behavioural symptoms leading to disengagement are more common in boys.

Cycle of disengagement

More behavioural issues in boys lead to more frequent suspensions and disciplinary actions. This in turn further demotivates these boys, disrupts their education, and leads to even more disengagement and ultimately poorer educational outcomes. I described the negative consequences of a growing cohort of disengaged young men last week.

Researchers argue that traditional schooling methods that heavily rely on activities that require kids to sit still (reading and writing) align better with the way girls learn. Boys might benefit from more hands-on, active, or visual learning strategies. This misalignment in teaching methods may be contributing to boys’ underperformance in the classroom.

Research also suggests that boys develop skills that are helpful in school (always linked to self-regulation) later than girls. This early gap can have lasting effects. Boys starting school with lower readiness levels, initially only lag slightly in their academic development.

If this disadvantage persists, it can widen throughout their whole education journey as boys remain disengaged. Girls can, of course, also be stuck in the same negative feedback but statistically boys are more likely to display this pattern.

While the education system is not deliberately biased against boys, there is evidence to suggest that it works better for girls.

Gender gap in teaching

Teachers from early childhood education onwards are overwhelmingly women. In Australia, only 23 per cent of all teachers are male. The gender gap is most extreme in early childhood education (2 per cent male teachers), softens a bit in primary school (15 per cent), and softens further in high school (38 per cent).

Research also shows that young boys are naturally drawn to male role models and tend to perform better under male teachers (especially in the early years of education). The teacher gender gap might disadvantage boys. How do we get more men into early childhood and primary education?

Adding very welcome advances in gender equality to the mix, it is no surprise to learn about higher enrolment rates for women at university level. Women also tend to complete tertiary programs at higher rates than men.

Women outperforming men at all levels of education leads to a perception of male disadvantage. Critics lament that the education system has become too “female-centred”, by emphasising skills that traditionally align with girls’ strengths, such as verbal communication, organisation, and rule-following.

The increasing attention on girls and women in education is then interpreted as reverse sexism. These lines of argument lead to quite a bit of intellectual silliness. Just ask the Andrew Tates of this world. In these circles misogyny and sexist generalisations dominate the discourse. Proponents of these arguments take on a zero-sum worldview.

They argue if men are failing in education, we better pull women right back down. This isn’t at all helpful.

How might we help?

So, how might we help boys and young men without undoing the progress we have made for girls? How can we better engage boys in learning and ensure the education system is equitable for all students, regardless of gender? Addressing the differences in learning styles, behaviour management, and early childhood development are areas where reforms might help close the gap.

On a family level, keeping your boys back from school for a year might be helpful. Having boys interact with girls that are slightly younger than them on average should close performance gaps. This might even make teaching easier too as older boys might be more engaged.

This is not a cheap solution though, since an additional year of childcare costs are hard to swallow for many households. Universal free childcare would free up families to make the decision about whether their child is ready for school based on academic rather than financial concerns.

On a societal level, we might encourage more men into early childhood and primary education by placing higher value on these jobs. Female teachers would benefit from this, too.

On a political level, the funding of charter schools targeting the most disengaged students is an increasingly popular option.

Demographer Simon Kuestenmacher is a co-founder of The Demographics Group. His columns, media commentary and public speaking focus on current socio-demographic trends and how these impact Australia. His podcast, Demographics Decoded, explores the world through the demographic lens. Follow Simon on Twitter (X), Facebook, LinkedIn for daily data insights in short format.