Part of the evaluation of the pilot was to compare the grade increase over two years from Key Stage 3 to GCSE between boys achieving level 4 or below in the single sex group with those in the mixed set above. In both the first and second cohorts taking GCSE English in 1998 and 99, significantly more boys (77 per cent) in the single sex groups (about 20 boys) added two or more levels than in the mixed group (49 per cent, about 25 boys and girls). It's clear, therefore, that for at least some boys, being taught in a single sex environment has been to their benefit.

I have never known such an atmosphere of committed, focused, supportive learning. The students are eager to read, they hand homework in on time and ask for more help with it. They  show courtesy to each other and take pride in their written work. So, why? Enhancing their self-esteem has been crucial, and central to this has been two methods.

First, I adapted a version of an assertive discipline scheme I'd seen in America based on a clear description of respect and self-respect which the boys are explicitly taught and reminded of daily. Second, I used what I learned from taking the youngsters on a trip to Lichfield Army Barracks. I remember standing on the top of a seventy-foot building looking down over the edge while, past me, student after student swept down effortlessly on their abseiling ropes. These same youngsters when faced with a book or a blank page and a pen could become petrified or openly aggressive. But here, they happily took their lives in their hands, giving the soldiers unequivocal trust.

Later I was horrified to see the same students who could so easily confront members of teaching staff with nonchalant defiance, contentedly obeying the most banal of orders to march up and down three hundred yards of Her Majesty's asphalt. Significantly, though, they were constantly rewarded and praised and learning was clearly structured in an environment of frequently changing activities. Every task was modelled, broken down into manageable bits and taught so that success was guaranteed when met with commitment from the student.

So, I got them together before the course started and loaded my introductory talk with high reward language: "You've been specially chosen to join this group," "You will amaze yourselves," and so on. And I amazed myself by doing a drill sergeant number: "Don't you dare come to class with your shirt hanging out or your shoes dirty. You've got to look good, be proud of yourself." They had to line up before they got into the room for a uniform check and, yes, part of me squirmed with embarrassment. But it worked because uniform is such a petty, easy thing to get right, just by doing up a top button or straightening a tie, praise is secured, right at the start of the lesson.

My teaching style has been characterised by things we now take for granted with underachieving boys:

• using highly structured reading sessions
• insisting on having a queue to speak
• tightly controlled whole-class drama that intensifies reading and writing activities;
• using media and ICT whenever possible
• proving their highly developed reading skills by giving status to their image reading - discussing video images then applying the same skills and vocabulary (narrative, infer, motive, development, contrast, emphasise etc) to the reading of Macbeth
• using a core writing frame (KEE) for analytic work.

The students are a pleasure to teach. There's nothing as important as significant change for the better and we see it every day in these classes. The boys have come to believe in themselves and in their ability. As one of them said: "I've taken control of my life."
 
Subscribe to Literacy Today