Boys’ performance in maths and science has jumped “significantly” above that of girls in the international TIMSS study, with the year 9 maths gap in England the largest of any country taking part.
The findings “signal an urgent need to assess why a gender gap of this kind has re-emerged over time in England, especially given the large-scale initiatives in place to address this in mathematics and science”, researchers warned.
The government has published a second research report detailing England’s performance in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).
The first report, published last year, revealed that pupils in England had seen improvements in their science attainment and “high” maths results “maintained”.
But today’s update, which breaks data down further by the characteristics of pupils, shows a large gender gap opened up in the latest maths tests after boys’ performance increased and that of girls dropped slightly.
Biggest gap of all countries taking part
Among year 5 pupils, the average score for boys was 561 in 2023, up slightly from 560 in 2019. The average score for girls dropped from 552 to 543 over the same period, leaving a gap of 17 points.
At year 9, the gap was even larger. Boys’ average score leapt from 516 to 538, while the score for girls dropped from 514 to 512, leaving a gap of 26 points.
Both gaps were described as “statistically significant”. It is also the first time since current records began in 2003 that a statistically significant gap has been seen at year 9. The 26 point gap at year 9 “was the largest for any of the countries participating in 2023”.
There was also a statistically significant gap in science at year 9, with boys achieving an average score of 538 (up from 515), while the average score for girls was 524, up from 515 in 2019.
Dr Jennie Golding of the UCL Institute of Education and one of the co-principal investigators on the research, said: “Over the last 20 years, boys and girls have achieved similar scores in TIMSS in both mathematics and science.
“It is difficult to say exactly why this gap has opened up, but our findings point to some factors including confidence, a sense of belonging and absenteeism. However, more research is needed to understand the reasons fully and address this problem.”
The findings also “mirror results for many participating countries, where a gender gap has opened up in favour of boys since the last report”, researchers said.
Girls ‘less confident and liked the subject less’
The report found gender differences were “clear in responses to questions asked about confidence in mathematics and science, as well as liking the subjects.
Girls were “significantly less confident and liked the subject less in both year groups and for both subjects”.
However, in “contrast to the 2019 cycle where their lack of confidence was not accompanied by significantly different performance, in 2023 girls were also outperformed by their male peers”.
Overall, boys demonstrated “more interest in further study of both subjects beyond secondary school and in careers that might include some aspects of mathematics or science”.
This suggests a need to “review how future study and employment related to mathematics and science are communicated, particularly to girls, to ensure the related sectors are attractive”.
Poorer pupils do less well
The report also found that pupils eligible for free school meals had a lower average score (490 points) than those not eligible (540 points). Again, the gap is “statistically significant”.
And those with lots of books at home significantly outperformed those with few or none in science. The average point score for those with over 200 books at home was 601, compared to just 461 for those with 10 or fewer.
Principal investigator professor Mary Richardson, also of the IOE, said “despite efforts within schools, socioeconomic factors are still influencing how many pupils perform in maths and science.
“Those who have fewer educational resources at home need extra support and awareness in order to access the same opportunities to learn compared as their better-resourced peers.”
