Why are over 80% of school suspensions boys?

[ZenAgainWoo]

Watched a tv show not long ago looking at children who have been suspended from school, and I think it stated that near 85% of school suspensions are boys. Why is this? Am I missing something glaringly obvious?

Yy to girl bullying being more harmful. Also the language girls use re being different, neurodiversity,appearance, weight etc the quiet exclusions of some, the looks, the manipulation of expectations and rules….. I see it all daily and have a child struggling with the fallout. It is catastrophic and yes in many ways more dangerous. The way it often goes under the radar means it often doesn’t even get validated and can go on for years until girls fall to pieces further down the line.

I’ve worked in school all my working life. I unpick more after playtimes with girls than boys every single day. It cuts hugely into teaching time.

Good lessons require good behaviour from all girls and boys.86% of schools are graded good to outstanding. So there is not a boys behaviour issue. I don’t see it. I see a few struggling children rarely excluded. Often it’s boys because girls mask SENs and struggling. They shouldn’t be, they should be encouraged not to comply and to shout louder.

Yep and they don't hold grudges as much . Girls use exclusion and hostility and it can go on until the target leaves school and even beyond.

If the question “Do you spend more classroom time on the boys or the girls” were posed, the answer would be “the boys”. It’s as simple as that. And once you’ve identified that, you can start looking at the causes. If you don’t identify that- well, where do you start?

My point is that this is both an unhelpful and a misleading question to ask in the first place; as a trained researcher it's certainly not how we'd ask it. The useful question is 'of the children who require disproportionate attention what proportion are boys?'. Sociologists (I'm not one but my field is adjacent and I read a lot of sociological work) absolutely wouldn't say 'boys are more badly behaved', they'd say 'boys in our sample are 4 times more likely to exhibit behaviour assessed as disruptive', precisely because the difference, and language, really matters.

I just don't think it's true that it's ok because you don't say it to the students. If a teacher said that 'the black children take up all my time because they're badly behaved' when they meant 'the children who are disruptive are disproportionately black' I would say that they were unfit for the classroom, and I think so would most people, even if they weren't saying it to the children - attitudes like that leak out and it's certainly not some sort of marker of objective analysis!

Sorry if it seems I'm having a particular go at you - I picked your post out as representative of a lot of attitudes in this post rather than because I wanted to target you. But I do think it's harmful to say 'the boys', and that's precisely because I think it gets in the way of tackling male violence and antisocial behaviour than because I want to minimize or excuse it.

I have a boy that is one of the suspension statistics and I have taken a lot of interest in this subject, but at a primary level - pre puberty. He largely mixes with other children who have been excluded too as he is at a semh school.

There is a big overlap between suspensions at this age and SEN. There appears to be some evidence that boys are more likely to be born premature and more likely to have a range of disorders.
None of us are writing it off as boys will be boys. We are all extensivley working with OT, speech and language and behaviour support focusing on emotional regulation.

I dont know if at secondary its other things causing suspensions as puberty os very powerful - but a lot of the bullying issues mentioned by boys and girls, or even low level disruption dont cause suspensions for anyone.

I do think you’re splitting hairs here. This is a mumsnet discussion, not an academic paper. It’s perfectly reasonable to say that boys take up more teacher time, rather than to say “of the children taking up most teacher time, a disproportionate number are boys.”

Just out of interest, if you ever discuss male violence, do you say things like “of the people murdering their partners, a disproportionate number are men”? Or do you call a spade a spade?

There is a deep-seated refusal by some on this thread to actually look at data and research rather than rely upon their anecdotes and stereotypes. Ironically they can't see how their attitudes are reinforcing problems. No wonder there has been a push in the US towards single sex schools. If attitudes on here are indicative of the levels of comprehension of the issues in education then the only way to give all DCs a fair chance at a good education is to move them into a single sex system that actually addresses the challenges rather than cementing the problems.

I think one of the main reasons is that testosterone is a very powerful drug.

I do think you’re splitting hairs here. This is a mumsnet discussion, not an academic paper.

You're the one who started telling me what sociologists and educationalists would say - I just pointed out that you were wrong!

No, I wasn’t saying what they would say verbatim. I was saying that it’s perfectly acceptable to discuss distinct groups of people to find out if those groups display a distinct characteristic. Are you saying analysts of education, in whatever discipline, don’t look at groups in this way? They don’t look at the performance of boys against the performance of girls? That all groupings have to be tiptoed round with the semantic gymnastics you’ve suggested?

You didn’t answer my question about the discussion of male violence either…

The accepted opinion on mumsnet is that all bad behaviour is ‘learned’ and that we can educate/support virtually everybody out of it, and that it’s a sign of ‘unmet need’. There seems to be a real reluctance to admit that genes/biological factors/evolution etc plays any part in what people do.

You have to temper those figures with the fact that makes and females get different sentences for the same crimes. Females often get a non custodial sentence where a male would get custodial.

sentencing in the uk and USA is very prone to bias, whether ethnicity, sex, etc

I've been absolutely clear that we can and should discuss average differences and group differences by sex, just that we should do so accurately. It's not 'semantic gymnastics', it's being accurate. As I said, the way you phrase things is both completely useless for any analysis and also actively harmful. I've been dancing around saying it but I actually think it makes you a very poor teacher, too, that you can't see why hugely generalizing about your students on the basis of their sex is inappropriate.

I'm sorry that you told me how research is done without actually knowing yourself, I appreciate that it's embarrassing for you and that you didn't know I was a researcher, which was unfortunate!

And of course I'd say 'almost all murderers are men' rather than 'men are murderers' - the latter sounds absurd and, again, is a useless statement!

@Hardbackwriter
You’re being ridiculous and rather pompous.

First, I’d advise you to stop inventing things. It doesn’t help your cause. You claim I told you ‘how research is done’ when I did no such thing 🙄You may be a researcher - you may not. Who knows? It’s irrelevant. The single thing you took issue with was my using the phrase ‘the boys’ in the context of saying that it was the boys and not the girls who take up most of my time. Whether you like it or not, it remains true. You can frame it how you like, but the boys as a group cause more problems in class.

Everyone is able to understand that. Indeed, it’s essentially there in the single statistic that precipitated this thread. You can argue with my phrasing all you like, but good luck arguing with the numbers!

As others have said, there’s a lot of rather desperate obfuscation in this thread. No one is impressed that you’re now claiming to be an academic; you’re not fooling anyone against the glaring issue that you simply don’t like the reality of boys’ behaviour. It’s a genuine problem in schools.

Having a chuckle at the idea I’d care that you’re suggesting I’m a ‘very poor teacher’ though. Don’t stop there - don’t worry, I can take it 😂

Oh - and you never did answer my question about discussing male violence… I’m guessing you’re a NAMALT specialist!

Indeed. If a child (or young adult) behaves badly it's all the parents' fault, as though children have no agency themselves or as though parents tell their sons to kick the wotsit out of other kids before they go to school (well maybe occasionally they do, but I think in most cases parents are mortified if their son is violent at school).

Having more male teachers at primary schools might help (so get over your ideas that men must be paedophiles if they want to work with children) and I have also found that school staff with sons themselves tend to deal better with boys in school (not always, some obviously have Stepford kids who never put a foot wrong, but on the whole they were more effective at disciplining boys in a fair way).

As for the person whose son is ginger and stopped him beating up people who bullied him, I suspect the fact you are a teacher and had that skillset gave you a massive advantage in handling the issue.

makes and females get different sentences for the same crimes. Females often get a non custodial sentence where a male would get custodial

really? I thought it was the other way round, that females are more likely to have the book thrown at them for not complying with accepted ideals of female behaviour and that for the same offence they will get a stricter sentence. Men might end up with a custodial sentence more often because they're on court appearance number 103 and the magistrate or judge finally gets fed up with them.

They mature later. They have increased testosterone which leads to impulsive behaviour

@Hardbackwriter I've appreciated your posts but you are wasting your time trying to get certain posters to engage meaningfully with the issues. They don't want to do that because it would mean analysing their own 'professional' attitudes, standards and bigotries.

There are lots of dedicated teachers and HTs who keep abreast of the latest research on education and child development but sadly there will always be those who think their stereotypes trump research and who would rather complain than work to create solutions. They'd also rather be gfs on the internet than read the developments in their field.

You’ve been on mumsnet to long if you genuinely believe that. It’s a byproduct of a patriarchal system that females get ‘protected’ because they are ‘fragile’

from the DOJ

Analysis of Gender as a Factor associated with Custodial Sentences for Breach of a Court order

Summary
Male offenders were more likely to be sentenced to immediate custody for breaching a court order: the odds of male offenders receiving a custodial sentence was 73% higher than for female offenders.
A number of other factors were found to be predictive of custodial sentencing for breach offences: age; ethnicity; criminal history; index (main) offence type; type of court order breached; and number of previous breaches.
The differences in custodial sentencing rates may be due to factors which were not taken into account in the models. Sentencing outcomes may depend on a wide range

of other factors, e.g. family responsibilities, mental health issues, and opportunities for diversion from custody.

and from this report Associations between police-recorded ethnic background and being sentenced to prison in England and Wales.

Gender
Males were independently associated with approximately 83% higher odds of being sentenced to imprisonment, compared to females. Again, the effect was small but statistically significant

its a very well established fact

Hit enter to soon.

so while I agree that there will be a reason why males are more likely to be suspended (testosterone, more prone to physical violence) it’s also likely to mirror the courts in that they get disproportionately higher levels of discipline/suspension than females.

@AlexandriasWindmill

but sadly there will always be those who think their stereotypes trump research

I’m assuming you mean me. But do you realise that I’m the one engaging with the research-based statistic from the thread title? Can you explain why you’re dismissing a proven statistic as a ‘stereotype’?

Can you explain what you mean by my ‘stereotypes trumping research’?

Because mums raise their boys telling them they need to be tough. And they dress them in dark colours. And clothes that say "cool. Wild thing. Tough. Rough. Superhero. Here comes trouble" (don't even mention all the trucks/dinos/superheroes)
Look around you.

Girls are dressed in happy colours. And glitter. And the emphasis is on looks. (Dont get me started)Boys are being wrecked from the start. The message of having to be cool and awesome and strong and kings. Girls a re being told to fit in and please people and play nice

No wonder many boys act out. (But also because some kids just Have terrible parents. Lets face it. )

Because mums raise their boys telling them they need to be tough.

And the dads?!

I haven't read the thread, but I work with excluded students and my personal view is that when boys have suffered trauma (neglect, abuse, family breakdown), they tend to act out with violence or generally disruptive behaviour, so they get excluded.

Girls tend to go within, self harm and don't cause anyone any bother, so they get to stay in school. Although in the last couple of years we are starting to see more violent and younger girls.

FWIW we never, ever get a student who's just naughty, there's always trauma and in most cases their stories would make you weep.

'I always see on these boards people claiming men and women are wired the same, and often that they're just raised differently etc.'

Do you? I don't. Men and women are absolutely 'wired' differently but that doesn't mean that they should be treated unequally when it comes to rights, jobs etc.
Violent crime is almost always committed by men. Boys will become men. Some boys have behavioural issues. Those issues tend to come out in physical aggression against others. Girls are more likely to be verbal or turn inward and hurt themselves - self-harming, food control etc. A girl self-harming isn't disrupting an entire class. A boy shouting and being aggressive is.
Even in my kids primary school now it boys who are disruptive in class - from shouting out and dominating the discussions - to kicking off and scrapping or running around refusing to sit etc.