Home > Issues > International Organisations > Using Groupwork to Dominate Boys in Schools

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

Using Groupwork to Dominate Boys in Schools

Peter Zohrab 2018

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map

 

(Open Letter to the OECD Secretary-General)

 

Dear Mr. Gurría,

 

I am writing to complain about the OECD's oppression of boys. I refer principally to the two OECD documents, (1) "Girls better than boys at working together to solve problems, finds new OECD PISA global education survey" and (2) "PISA 2015 Results (Volume V): Collaborative Problem Solving".

 

Introduction

Your webpage http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/#d.en.194378 states:

Together, our goal continues to be to build a stronger, cleaner and fairer world.

That is an exceedingly vague statement, especially with respect to the words "stronger" and "fairer". We are obviously expected to trust your ability to decide what is "fair" in all relevant circumstances, which is ludicrous. Given that your member countries are predominantly in Europe, North America and Oceania and my analysis below, I suspect that what you mean by "fair" is "whatever Feminists want."

Whatever the standard of your other (e.g. Economics) publications may be, the intellectual standard of documents (1) and (2) is very low. For a start, I could mention that the title of document (1) "Girls better than boys at working together to solve problems, finds new OECD PISA global education survey") is not even written in idiomatic English (The verb "finds" should be at the end). Probably the original article was first written in a language other than English, but not translated into English by a native-speaker of English, as it should have been.

I note that the person who wrote the Editorial to the PISA 2015 Results was Andreas Schleicher, whose education was in Mathematics and Physics. Such an educational background is perfectly suitable for statistical analysis, which is what PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) purports to be. However, it is totally inappropriate for the educational, philosophical and political content and undertones of the Editorial. On the other hand, I note that the members of the PISA Governing Board in 2015 were ALL FEMALE (with the possible exception of Dr. Sungsook Kim), according to the Foreword of the PISA 2015 Results. In other words, the obvious bias in the Editorial, which is written by a man, is the result of the fact that the policy had been determined by a Governing Board composed entirely, or (at best) almost entirely, of women! This is despite the fact that the Foreword advocates that diversity be celebrated. Since women are in charge, they presumably consider that women are automatically "diverse'!

Although PISA 2015 Results (Volume V) purports to be about collaborative problem solving, in fact the photograph which illustrates the Foreword is a photograph of ONE girl doing something with a pipette and a flask. The same photograph of ONE girl doing something with a pipette and a flask illustrates the beginning of the Editorial. These are the only illustrations in the seven pages which comprise the Foreword and Editorial! This emphasis on girls by women is very much the flavour of the substantive issues, which I turn to next.

 

Substantive Issues

The PISA 2015 study was the first large-scale test of how well students collaborate with one another. The reasons given for undertaking such a study are simplistic in the extreme. On the other hand, the Editorial states:

When PISA assessed individual problem-solving skills in 2012, boys scored higher in most countries. By contrast, in the 2015 assessment of collaborative problem solving, girls outperform boys in every country....

In other words, the female PISA Governing Board was appalled when, in 2012, boys scored higher in most countries in individual problem-solving. Therefore they introduced an assessment of collaborative problem-solving, since boys are naturally competitive and girls are naturally cooperative. Groups allow gregarious people (typically girls) to dominate competitive individuals (typically boys).

The Editorial does mention the issue of group dynamics in passing, but there is no attempt to consider whether individual problem-solving or collaborative problem-solving produces better results. Group dynamics is a research field in itself, as can be seen by reading books such as Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior, by Marvin E. Shaw (2nd Edition, 1976, McGraw-Hill). Groups have structures and people play various roles in groups. Groups are not just individuals added together. An individual may have an excellent idea and that idea may well be "listened to" by the group, but it is the politics of the group which decides whether that idea is accepted or not. We have all heard the saying that a camel is a horse designed by a committee! There is no evidence produced to prove that people need to study in groups at school in order to be able to function well in groups in later life.

 

Conclusion

Groupwork is a Feminist scam and conspiracy to cover up female intellectual inadequacies and oppress boys. The article The Personal is Political at http://www.carolhanisch.org/CHwritings/PIP.html makes it clear that Feminists should strategically maintain and improve female self-esteem. Groupwork is a tool which has been used by teachers in countries such as New Zealand (who are predominantly female) to improve girls' academic results and depress the academic results of boys. Th OECD seems to be doing the same thing -- and at the expense of the taxpayers of OECD countries.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Peter Zohrab

Summary Haiku:

Men have no rights,
but aren't less human.
We blame sexism.

 

See also:

 

FAQ

Webmaster

Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

19 July 2018

Top