Boy-orientated teaching

[nannygoatgruff]

Hello

I'm currently looking round Primary schools for DS5, who is due to start Sept 2011.

One of the schools made a big selling point of the fact that it tailors its teaching towards boys - not too much sitting still doing pen and paper work, doing number work by running in playground collecting numbers, good work stickers having dinosaurs and spiders on etc.

The Head said that girls thrive with pretty much any system of teaching.

I was so impressed, I have 4 boys and 2 girls, and I am convinced that boys learn differently to girls.

Then I went to another local school. I asked the Head if they did anything similar, and she said that she had never heard of such a thing - girls and boys progressed equally in her school - and had the same teaching methods.

Now I don't know if the first Head was talking rubbish or not. I really liked that school, although it is further away - not in walking distance.

Any opinions anyone?

I think boys & girls DO learn differently (disclaimer not all boys and not all girls are different etc etc yada yada)

The boys do love to run and shout and jump, and that IS discouraged at school, where 'sitting nicely' is an art that they need (quiet rightly if the class is to succeed) to learn early on

that said DS is not at all bothered by getting agolden teddy not a golden dinosaur sticker :)

I think homeboys makes a very good point, what is your DS like?

My DS likes sitting still at a desk with worksheets. He hates free play with a passion. DD, OTOH, likes dancing and singing.

My son is extremely active, doesn't sit still for long etc - so the 'boys method' sounds just right for him.

They learn spellings by competing against the computer rather than sitting with a list in a book.

Its a lovely school, built in 1999, well planned outdoor area, the Head was very impressive, seemed to know what she was talking about.

The schools aren't actually that far apart, so the probably get the same catchment area, both above average number having free dinners, or with SEN, so evenly matched in that respect.

My older DS is in Year 6 at the closer school, and he thinks its a good school - but he didn't go to the Infant department, so I've had no experience of that part of the school.

Although when I went to collect my little DS from their Nursery class today they were all round the TV watchind cbeebies - not sure I send him to nursery to do that

It concerns me that the 'boys' teaching school is an Infant school only - very unusual in this area - and the linked junior school is very nearly in special measures.

Girls outperform boys age 5,7,11 and 16.

The question is whether boys would do better if they were taught in a different way. I would be very very surprised if the second school had equal outcomes for girls and boys- they may make similar progress but the boys are likely to be starting each key stage at a slightly lower level.

I wasn't very impressed with the Head at the second school TBH.

I knew that boys and girls did not perform at the same level nationally, so I was suprised when she said that.

She was vague when I asked what scheme they used for learning letter sounds too.

Boys and girls do learn differently. I generally don't pitch a lesson to boys or girls but to my class as a whole. I have found some topics such as pirates which could be considered boy orientated, will also engage girls but if I ran a 'fairy tales' topic, the boys maybe less interested.

My DD is only 3 but I think she learns more like a boy! She is always outside at preschool and is really active.

The first school sounds good but you have to be practical, if it's going to be too much hassle getting there every day you should forget it now.

Not too impressed by the other head though, either she is clueless or she thought you were a pushy parent and was trying to fob you off?

Obviously, it depends on your DS. But it also depends on your considered reaction to 'boys/girls' in such a way. I would be rather worried about the mentality that believed this distinction had general validity ('interests' is one thing, 'learning' is entirely different), and worried about any other pigeonholing going on.

Academic work demands knowledge and application, and social skills that go with it. Girls have outperformed boys since the 1950s (some would argue one reason the 11+ was abandoned). Maybe the problem isn't the teaching, which works towards those goals, but the refusal to recognise that you can't give boys a get-out-clause and tell them they don't have to be like that, when employment and exams demand they do. Perhaps the second Head was simply politely telling you that?

I'm a man, and even I smell patriarchial BS when I hear it....

With 2 DSs of my own I know they focus so umch better when they have a had a good run round to get energy out of their system first.

I am not sure they learn differently from girls after that but trying to get a boy to concentrate when he is bursting with energy is near impossible.

I would wholeheartedly agree with that beenbeta - my DS has made a point of saying he likes quiet reading at school as they always do it straight after lunch when they've had a good run around in the playground. Very good planning.

Any child focuses better if not full of energy. Many children learn better if activities involve movement, just as they might respond better to visual, aural (or specifically textual) stimuli, and obviously a good teacher incorporates activities which suit different learning styles into what they do.

But do you really trust the judgement of a Head who moves form that to 'boys are like this', without reservation (and what's she telling parents of girls going round the school?)

Yes I suppose if it's all segregated according to gender it could be a problem - I was wondering about that when that Gareth Malone show was on. What about girls who learn in a more boyish way, do they miss out? Or indeed the boys who prefer sitting still?

Wendy Bradford, co-author of Getting it Right for Boys and Girls says, 'Boys are the best barometers of good teaching.' Very often, if a boy doesn't see the sense and purpose in doing something then he blooming well won't engage with it at all.

Gosh. So she thinks that girls are sheep then?

not neccessarily sheep, Indelible but (sweeping generalisation coming up) girls are more likely to want to behave in a manner they find pleases the person in authority, to be amenable, to sit quietly and still

So more traditional teaching styles suit girls better than boys, partic in the early years of schooling

HTH

final sentence should say generally speaking suit girls better than boys

I don't think you need to ask us, OP. Go with your gut feeling.

Indelible Fri 12-Nov-10 18:34:32

Gosh. So she thinks that girls are sheep then?

now where did she say that?
I think what she is saying is that boys are harder to teach in general ...

Love the name BoysAreLikeDogs - I've been saying that - in a nice way of course, I like dogs - for years

My first batch of DCs are in their late 20's, 2 DD's and 1 DS. This DS was very quiet, studious, hated football etc,

but the second batch ages 10,3,2 are like small animals - rolling, running, yelling constantly - like pups.

The Head of the second school knows me by name and is quite pally due to the fact that my DS is in yr 6 and is one of those boys that the teachers all know, so I don't think she was being deliberatly evasive.

The first Head actually said that girls in general are so switched on they will thrive, they generally like to learn.

Strangely enough, we have just been visiting our local grammars for older DS to start in Sept. One school has only recently become co-ed, it was a boys school, and the Head said that although it was still 2 thirds boys, it was the girls who were heading the school councils, setting up book groups etc.

Boys are harder to teach? That?s almost as ridiculous as saying girls are like sheep. I don?t think boys are harder to teach but I do think they learn differently. They are driven by instant reward whilst girls seem to seek approval and take pride in their work.

I wonder if the boys results will decline because the school has become Co-Ed. I have a slight inkling it could!

Boys need to play more and be more physical in those early years. I see it every year in my schools reception class - lively boys needing to run round while the girls sit nicly waiting to practice letter formation.

mrz, she says "Very often, if a boy doesn't see the sense and purpose in doing something then he blooming well won't engage with it at all."

That implies that girls will engage with something even if they can't see the sense and purpose in it. Not really a terribly flattering characterisation, and if it's true, deserves to be addressed just as much - do we really want to reinforce that degree of passivity in our girls?

Speaking as a parent not an educator I'd send any boys I had to the first school without question. People learn in different ways (I think research shows there are 5 different ways) so the 2nd headteacher would not have impressed me at all and I just wouldn't believe that the results in her school are the same for boys and girls - do you think she would show you the stats?

I agree with mrz - it isn't anti feminist to recognise that boys are different and yes, I think girls in general will go along with things that may be why they do better in the education system as it is now.

Indelible that ties in with my post about girls being more amenable and eager to please (broad brush, speaking generally)

I don't see why a flattering picture of girls' learning styles, attitudes and dispositions must be painted