To challenge this note from nursery ?

[Blankiefan]

Leaflet came home with 4yo DD from nursery (it's the school nursery). Note is about benefits of outside play and learning. So far, so good... until...

"Boys, in particular, require a means of testing themselves (and true abilities) in a physical manner, which is impossible in the confined space of a school classroom."

AIBU to think this reflects some sort of belief that the boys should be challenged in ways the girls aren't? It's a philosophy I'm uncomfortable with - why should they make a distinction on gender?

She's only been attending this nursery for a fortnight - she goes for afternoon sessions spending the rest of her time at the private nursery she's been at since she was 6 months old. Am I going to be that parent if I complain this soon into her school career? The nursery is part of the school she'll attend for primary.

Oh please link to the research that shows that

Common sense would tell you that as the only biological differences between boys and girls at that age are their genitals which don't determine how active you are. Hormonal differences don't come into play until puberty.

Children of any gender need to burn off energy and exercise. I don't know where this bollocks about "Well, boys are different" and "Boys need to run around more" comes from. My girls are much more energetic than my boy - they are the running/loud/energy/boisterous 'type', whereas my boy sits quietly and dislikes boisterousness. That's a personality type, not a gender rule.

"Boys and girls are different
... just that boys need it more"

They're not.

They don't.

Going to teach your daughters to cook and clean whilst the boys "wind down" after a hard day's work, too? Because they're so 'different'?

Ooh I would not be happy with that. I have two girls. One's a tree climbing, mud digging, lover of insects. The other is a fancy dress wearing, doll minding, role player. And funnily enough, they also enjoy playing with each other.

I'd be making a big old fuss about that one OP. YANBU.

Oh, and by the way, I'm "that" parent. And got told by the Head this morning, "I've been hearing grumbling about that...thank you for actually coming to talk to me about it!" Despite the views of MN, we're not Bad People.

Maybe it's a jumped-up way of saying that little boys need to burn off more energy than girls and so need to run round outside?

Face. Palm. Hope you don't fuck your daughters life up with those views.

Haven't RTFT, but what concerns me most is that an ofsted regulated nursery wrote this stuff.

You might expect to hear it from someone not experienced in childcare, but a nursery. FFS.

I think, if you aren't happy with this, then you need to take a good look at the actual school & see if it's an overall school 'thing' or an individual thing & see if it's actually the right school for your DD. If they're more 'traditional' in their outlook & are teaching 'boys & girls' rather than 'children' or 'individuals' then you're going to spend an awful lot of years swimming upstream. If it's just one person at nursery then you stand 'some' chance of changing their thinking, but not much tbh.

It's very sexist.

All children need to play outside, to play physically, to test their true abilities in a physical manner.

I'd call them on it. I'd be THAT parent.

Yanbu. Little boys and girls need to challenge themselves physically and tear around.

There was no difference between my two energy wise. Still isn't.

Others have shared very good evidence debunking the myth of innate boy/girl behavioural differences at this age.

Earlier in the thread someone asked whether there were any psychologists reading . I'm a psychology lecturer in the area of child and adolescent nutrition/public health with an MSc in developmental psychopathology.

And the note is utter bollocks. OP, please be THAT parent.

Even if it is true (it's bollocks) shouldn't we be encouraging less active kids to run around and challenge themselves? Aren't they the ones who need extra encouragement?

It builds confidence for anybody to feel in control of their body and able to accomplish things. It gives a feeling of being in control, physically, over their surroundings.

So shouldn't ALL kids be encouraged to do this, instead of feeling that it's better for some than others?

I've not read all the replies, but wonder if the letter, rather than saying "boys need more exercise than girls" is actually saying "we have noticed that the boys that attend this nursery appear to be happier playing indoors than outdoors, than the girls that attend this nursery who seem to love being outside. It is important for children to play outside and we are making a conscious effort to get the boys that attend this nursery to spend more time outside to improve their gross motor skills etc"

My eldest DDs were beautifully behaved in a childcare setting and remain so through school. My DS (DC3) was not, he had challenging violent behaviour which I grew to suspect was ASD.

Nursery told me very seriously that the reason for this was that I had no idea how to Parent Boys, that I was "doing it wrong" and that they're "very different" and I needed to go on a "Parenting Boys" course, which they helpfully provided a leaflet for. Clearly this type of thinking really is deeply entrenched in some childcare settings.

Thank feck his school nursery class recognised his ASD and he was formally diagnosed at his first appointment, and he got the support he needed.

Girls are less physically active than boys.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4784873/

And the Conclusion from the above article:
In a population of children of mid-range socioeconomic status in Australia, lower PA among girls in comparison to boys can be explained, in part, by weaker influences on PA at school, through parent’s support and through lower participation in community sport. Because these influences are potentially modifiable, future intervention strategies to increase PA should focus on each of these areas simultaneously, and pay particular attention to equality of support and opportunities for girls and boys.

PA = physical activity not passive aggressiveness

SDaddy007

Not sure why you posted this article. Among some of its interpretations:

In the context of previous research indicating that girls and boys may behave differently during school lunch breaks [32] and physical education [7], a plausible explanation is that some schools provide more opportunities for students to be physically active during these times but they are more readily accessed or desirable to boys.

One other significant conclusion of this slightly older cohort 8-12 was that parents were much more likely to take sons to external training and competitions, thus decreasing the daughters chances of improvement and enjoyment.

I know this is currently a hot topic, but I do actually do honestly believe school shoes do have some influence with this. DD2 is extremely active and gets through her shoes in no time, she never outgrows them. How many girls are discouraged from more active play in their school shoes? "Don't climb that tree, you'll wreck your shoes.."

They're also less comfortable to run around in, not as springy - a small difference, but so are the statistics.

Common sense would tell you that as the only biological differences between boys and girls at that age are their genitals which don't determine how active you are. Hormonal differences don't come into play until puberty.

There is significant difference in prenatal exposure to testosterone between boys and girls. This notion that there are no such hormonal differences until puberty is just plain wrong.

There is research to suggest that these differences in exposure account for some of the observed difference in children's preferences for 'boyish' and 'girlish' things. People have, for example, looked at children of the same sex who have had different degrees of testosterone exposure in the womb and correlated that against their boy-like/girl-like preferences. There have been links to this sort of published research posted already in this topic.

None of this is a good reason to think that nurseries need to have different play schemes for girls and boys (or, if the intention is to equalise innate differences, then perhaps they should be putting the emphasis on physical play for the girls rather than the boys).

The prenatal testosterone exposure doesn't make an ounce of difference to their physical activity needs at 3 years old.

Boys and girls do have different needs, generally speaking from studies, observations and past experiences it has been found that ALL children benefit from outdoor play, but biologically boys DO benefit more from tactile and physical play.

However it is quite concerning that the nursery feel the need to publish this generalisation in the news letter, why not leave the gender out and inform parents of the benefit of outdoor play for ALL children within the nursery, and then adapt their practice for each individual childs needs and interests.

I'm guessing it's a well meaning member of staff that has recently been on a training course about boys developement and they want to share their knowledge from this course.

Scientifically there definitely are differences between boys and girls - but the nursery was wrong to send that note because

a) the differences apply at a population level and not at an individual level where there can be a lot of cross over between the more active of the girls and the less active of the boys

b) there is enough sexism already - probably best to treat them all the same (ie. offer lots of exercise) and let them work out the differences for themselves otherwise you risk magnifying the differences

Boys and girls do have different needs, generally speaking from studies, observations and past experiences it has been found that ALL children benefit from outdoor play, but biologically boys DO benefit more from tactile and physical play.

Where's your evidence for this, coffeekittens?

SDaddy007 ( wot a name... says a lot!)

RTFR ( read the fucking research). Ermmm... which YOU posted up.....
You really must go to Specsavers.

Along with other people here who clearly CAN RTFR, I would also point out that it says:

*As a society, do we accept the premise that young girls are less physically active than boys as “normal” or is it because we are failing to provide girls with the same level of opportunity and support to be equally active?

Our data cannot determine the answer with precision but are suggestive of the latter. For example, in the community setting, lower sport participation rates in girls may be indicative of fewer opportunities and/or less support for girls.

Similarly, in the school setting, our data indicate that girls feel less competent in PE than boys, and that in contrast to boys, school had little influence on girls’ PA. Finally, the same trend is apparent in the family setting, with our data indicating that higher levels of parental support of PA is translated to higher levels of PA in boys but not girls. Given that each of these influences are potentially modifiable, it is possible that with increased support for girls’ PA at the school and family levels, these gender-related differences in PA during childhood could be reduced.*

@Coffeekittens
So where is YOUR solid evidence then? I would love to read it.

I'd also add that the OP is talking about a 4 year olds here, not the 8 to 12 group .....which Sugardaddy007 posted up. .....
Sheesh...can't believe the ancient crap some people are writing here.