A school's function is to impart knowledge

The argument

An inattentive, and lazy worker does not excel in the workplace. An inattentive and lazy student does not excel at school. There is no inherent design in the workplace that benefits the hardworking, just as there is no design in the school system to give girls a leg up. The comparison is doing the work of the argument: in both settings, the outcome follows from what the individual brings to it, and an arrangement that rewards application is not thereby an arrangement built to favour whoever happens to apply themselves. Girls are simply able to apply themselves and focus more, therefore, they progress faster. The school system is designed to impart knowledge in the most efficient way — that is its function, and the standard it is built around is how effectively knowledge is transmitted and absorbed. A system built to that specification will produce better results for whoever is better suited to it, without anyone having selected who that would be. The fact that girls are better at absorbing knowledge in that manner is not part of a wicked design to structurally alienate boys, it just means they are better learners. On this argument the distinction matters because it determines what kind of complaint is available. A design that disadvantages boys would be a grievance against the institution; a difference in how boys engage with a neutral design is not, whatever else might be said about it. Instead of worrying about how we can change the system to even the playing field, we should look at how we can change boys to make them more receptive to knowledge and focus better. Altering the system to close the gap would mean making it less efficient at its actual function, which is imparting knowledge. Because a school's function is to impart knowledge and it performs that function without bias, the gap is not in itself a cause for concern.

Context

Schools are designed to provide students with knowledge in the most efficient way. Therefore, to say the school system is designed to benefit girls is a folly. It is designed to impart knowledge effectively. If girls are better at focusing/sitting still/receiving that knowledge, then so be it.

Premises

Counter-arguments

If the function of the school system is to impart knowledge in the most effective way, then surely it is committed to devising a way that benefits all students, not just the female students. If males and females learn differently and benefit from different learning styles, instead of choosing one which may favour one group, surely it is the school system's responsibility to pursue different teaching methods for different groups of students? By accepting that boys are struggling in the existing school system, but not taking steps to remedy the situation, the school system is not performing its basic function of providing a learning environment that is advantageous to everyone.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The school system's function is to impart knowledge in the most effective and efficient way for everyone. [Rejecting P2] If different sexes benefit from different teaching methods, it is the school system's responsibility to ensure those students access the teaching methods that benefit them.