Grr. Why are all "bored" DSs allegedly unrecognised G&T? Teachers must tear their hair out!

[teslagirl]

Why is it that seemingly every 8 and 9 y.o. DS who announces he's "bored at school" is automatically regarded by his mother as being "very intelligent but under stimulated" by the school? Sometimes I feel I'm surrounded by it! I had 2 parents helping at the school disco who said this, separately. The DSs are both Y3- and as luck would have it, both in my DS1s class (he's Y4 in a Y3/4 combo) and HE said, when obliquely questioned that both DSs are in Maths 4 and Literacy 4- out of 5. As "very intelligent" Y3s they should surely be in 3 or EVEN 2 if they're REALLY G&T (bearing in mind group 1 is full of the brightest Y4s)!

I heard this also in the wash-up after Y4 parents evening- a few mums who told the teacher DS needed more work as he'd said he was "Bored", proof indeed that the school was evidently failing them... Surely it's cool for junior school boys to claim EVERYTHING is 'Boring'?- it's in the nature of being 8-11 esp whilst emulating the studied ennui of the older boys! It doesn't necessarily mean they ARE bored OR, if they genuinely are, let's not go assuming it's because our DS is an unrecognised G&T thus are under stimulated/failed by the school, but maybe entertain the possibility that DS can't be bothered/hasn't got the maturity to understand the value of engaging with his education! I know the DSs concerned and I don't see any glimmer of genius lurking within!

One further point- and I know this is thin ice: It also strikes me how many of the mothers concerned haven't got an O level to rub together. Perfectly nice people, all, but women who will admit they spent secondary snogging behind the bike shed but suddenly spout authoritatively on the nature of Education Theory and The Undiagnosed Genius.

I'm offended because frankly blokes are still doing better than women, and get better jobs, and are paid more, and are generally Rulers Of The Universe, and I personally as a feminist worry about that quite a lot. I fully agree that if I had sons I might well worry more about the education system. But yes, as a girl who did well at school and as the mother of girls who do well at school, I get offended by the idea that oh well we only do well because of an unfair bias. When the fact is that my daughters will probably grow up, poor loves, to inhabit a society in which their gender still earns less and has overall fewer educational qualifications than other people's sons.

Well yes but that's a whole different and massive and important issue. Many women drop out of careers - many find it too difficult to combine careers with motherhood and of course sexism exists and of course there is widespread inequality. But recognising that boys underachieve and trying to fix that problem in no way undermines the position of girls who do well.

LOL Wendy at 'lazy talkative opinionated sods like DS1.'
I think you make a good point though. The 'pushy parenting' approach to education may be producing a generation of self centred kids who think that they have an automatic right to have everything on their terms. A bit of healthy neglect can be good for kids. It can encourage them to be more recourceful, think for themselves. Some parents get so hung up about school and university they forget the end result. Surely we want to produce adults who will form good relationships, be happy and be economically independent? However interesting and stimulating your job is, there will be elements that are tedious, or just plain hard work. the sooner children learn that lesson, the better.

I know of a child who was bright, was 'bored' in primary and always in trouble - mum defended as it was supposedly teacher's fault. Was bored in secondary and always in trouble. Left secondary with little or no qualifications. Went to college. Was bored - left under a cloud. This child was defo a bright lad, no doubt. (Don't know if he was academic.) But every time he was in trouble (a lot) his mum put it down to his being 'bored' and in effect did him no favours in the long run. Maybe he was bored, but I believe he believed that he could legitimately use that as an excuse for misbehaviour.

Oh and a belated response to the O level point - you know - where mothers who dare query whether their DSs are being appropriately taught and recognised - I am old enough to have sat O levels (at a time when ironically it was the underperformance of girls that was the big educational issue) and I have 11 of them.

Quattro, I bet if the (unspoken but strongly implied) response to 'my child is doing reasonably well' is 'ah well, the system is slanted in your child's favour' and/or 'my child seems really quite chirpy and interested in school' was 'ah, that proves that your child's intellectual capacity is sufficiently stunted to be content with the teaching on offer', you'd get pissed off. Which is how I feel, sometimes.

But it's not implied MI. I can honestly say that the thought never entered my head. Why would it? I have a daughter (who loves absolutely loves her school) too. Are you sure you're not looking for slights where none exist?

Oh Yes, I totally agree, men do better outside school than girls, much much better, and totally unfair.

I am a feminist (grew up in a family where Spare rib was discussed at the breakfast table!) and I was horrified when I started teaching as everything I was seeing was going against my beliefs, it was a real shock to see boys were actually struggling to keep up, when all my beliefs were about equality for women.

In my female dominated class, results are through the roof, lots of A's A*, often the best in the school. In my male dominated classes, lots of C's. Same teacher, same school, same expectations. I certainly never think of my female students as plodding or sheeplike. They are lively, diligent, entertaining, keen and want to do their best.

I have a ds and a dd. I have deliberately steered my ds away from GCSE options with a heavy coursework load. I want him to do the best he can, so I have minimised his coursework options as much as I could. He always performs well in exams, but less so in class.

Dd is still too young to decide. But what I am talking about on here, is not a judgement about which sex I prefer, but it is about the access to equality in education for both genders

But how much is it unfair, and how much is it that many girls really can't be doing with the powerful high pressure jobs? Surely well-qualified ambitious girls who really want to go down that path can and do, but the rest just don't want to?

The thing that worries me the most is that I think children are singled out as clever far too early in this country. Many children mature much later than the 11+ or whatever exam they do to get into a good secondary school. Grammer school? Sorry, I am a bit ignorant. I know from my own schooldays that the children who did well in primary and even secondary are not necessarily the children who went on to do well in their a-levels/college/university/career. I think so many talents must be lost early on in the British school system. The way I see it organised by ability groups already in primary and then streaming into secondary.........It doesn't make sense to me.

I think that bad behaviour or being bored is often caused by learning difficulties like dyslexia or very low IQ rather than being gifted.

It must be really frustrating for a child to be unable to the the work because of poor literacy skills, yet be bright enough to understand the lesson.

Ultimately many children would rather that everyone thought they were naughty rather than the truth that they lack the intelligence to be able to do the work.

The special school where I work has quite a few children who have been excluded for bad behaviour. Once they are given work that is easy enough for them to do their behaviour improves rapidly.

so the response to mothers in OP post should be that perhaps the child is not gifted, but have really low IQ. LOL

Yes but if you read the OP's later comments it doesn't sound as though they've been tested ...

Intelligence comes in different forms, and not all - such as the 'boreds' - are suited to purely academic subjects. The one size fits all system doesn't meet the 'boreds' needs, but in the climate of league tables nor are they allowed to fail which then comes back to it being the teachers' fault for not challenging or stimulating the 'boreds' enough.

At a school known to me the motor vehicles course is only open to those who have no hope of achieving a pass at GCSE, yet many of the 'boreds' would really like to do it but are just about academic enough to squeeze a pass at GCSE (which'll boost the results) so aren't allowed to do it. It's a daft, crazy system.

Now MI I don't like to disagree with you, but FWIW, I do not feel that men are The Rulers of THe Universe.

Certainly in medicine and law, the numbers of women qualifying has exceeded men for over 15 years, I think. Of course what they do in their middle years and how they address the need to reconcile work and family is a completely different question, but I think women are doing very well indeed out of the current education system. I don't think they do have "fewer educational qualifications" and if they earn less, a lot of that is down to choices they/we make along the way.

Exactly, Anchovy.

Look at Xenia

Yes it's clear that part of the reason at least why women earn less is because of choices made en route

But the issue is more complex than that. It's clear that discrimination does exist - even where women do make the commitment to the workplace they still earn less than their male counterparts

QC - vey much agree. I work in a male dominated industry. I negotiated a term time only working arrangement so that I can spend time with my children in the holidays - ergo take a pro-rata pay drop in comparison which would show up in stats ....BUT - I am a million times happier and feel i have got a very good deal. My employer therefore benefits from my increased ciommittment to them, and save a bit on my salary - win,win.

Woen do worse because they believe wrongly they shoudl stay at home with small children because society and their families and their religions conditions them to accept that and because they marry sexist men and tolerate that and do not achieve equality at home in terms of fairness of who does the chores and finally because some (not all) have a different brain chemistry from men which makes them less likely to ask for pay rises and show off about their talents at work. I have always done masses of self promotion. Arguably the reason I earn a lot is not because of my 158 mensa IQ, private schooling, looking quite pretty etc but much more to do with the fact I sell myself continuously. I am the best. There is no on e better than I am in the UK at what I do etc which of course is true but I need to keep getting that message hammered home.

To go back to the original post.

There is a tendency to automatically assume that if a child misbehaves it is because they are bored. And then there is the illogical assumption that this must be because they are not being 'stretched' enough. This is an automatic response, and is normally the first response to such a query on MN.

A very small number of children fall into this category. Most do not, but it is much nicer to think that little Algernon attacked Ludmilla because he was 'Just so clever that the silly old teachers don't see it and was bored poor little love' rather than Algernon can be naughty and his parents (with the school) need to do something about it.

Even if we take the governments crazy diktat that 10% of children are G and T and then go on to assume that all of these children are 'bored', not every MNetters child can be in that 10%, not even with the skewed demographics of MN

And basically if a child is bored as some point in their lives they need to be well mannered enough not to be a PITA about it. I went to see the new Indiana Jones movie, which I loathed, but I didn't whine and fidget because other people were enjoying it. No child is going to love all their subjects, that is just part of life, but they don't have a right to wreck a lesson because they are 'bored'.

Boredom is also cause when children are on the wrong courses, I fully agree with the previous posts about the benefit of appropriately challenging vocational studies for those children who are just not going to be happy, fulfilled or successful at Academic studies.

I'm wondering what's wrong with the boys in dd's year? Out of the 10 or so highest achievers of Year 6, about half are boys. They are lively, but not badly behaved, great fun to talk to (according to dd) and do well in all subjects, not just maths. And they seem neither bored nor boring. Do you think they've blown all their chances in life?

Btw I don't think it's the case that bright girls don't get bored- but girls tend to get told not to make a fuss. Also, quite a few girls are already mature enough at 11 to realise that getting on with boring work is the route to being allowed to do non-boring work when they're older. (in fact, whisper it low, I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't boys out there who realise this too).

And if other children are like my dd, they learn that things get more interesting the more you throw yourself at them.

"FairyMum on Sun 15-Jun-08 22:01:22
The thing that worries me the most is that I think children are singled out as clever far too early in this country. Many children mature much later than the 11+ or whatever exam they do to get into a good secondary school. Grammer school? Sorry, I am a bit ignorant. ...I think so many talents must be lost early on in the British school system. The way I see it organised by ability groups already in primary and then streaming into secondary.........It doesn't make sense to me."

FairyMum- there are no entrance exams to get into a good state secondary comprehensive (and many counties don't have grammar schools). In fact, these schools are not allowed to select by ability. And the streaming is not set in stone: children are continuously moved up and down. The SATS exams taken by children at 11 are only to gauge the performance of the school; it does not decide the future of the individual child.

Very interesting posst MB.

I also think we have a tendancy to keep our children very busy from a very early age - swimming lessons from age three for example, as well as dance classes, and loads of activities that I never got to do until I was 7, 8 or 9 years old.

If we never allow our children to get bored, how are they supposed to keep themselves occupied?

I didn't believe that I should stay at home with dc. In the contrary I was bought up to have a career, which was great when I was in my 20's

Now, older, wiser (and tireder) I would pack in my job tomorrow if I could afford it, despite my upbringing. I used all my ambition up in my 20's and have none left. I would much rather be t home with my dd,...yet this is completely contrary to how I was bought up

MartianBishop - spot on regarding that no-one has the right to disrupt others' lessons just because they are 'bored'.
I also think Motherinferior made some extremely good points. I too get somewhat irritated by all the hand-wringing over the under-achievement of boys when the whole world after school is still sexist and loaded against girls. What gets me is the implication that teaching styles and exams 'suit' girls - they haven't changed that dramatically style wise since I was at school in the 60's/70's and back then boys were outperforming the girls. The difference is that now girls are encouraged and expected to achieve by teachers and parents whereas this was not always the case back then.

As for boredom, I can recall frequent occasions of being bored rigid as the teacher was going over English grammar for 'o'-level which I had learned in primary school but I never disrupted any lessons in my life. I was bored by the disruptions of other children who were not bright; they just liked to ruin things for everyone else as they got a buzz out of it.

Going back a few posts to MI's point about the 11+... It is true that girls were actively discriminated against in the days when everyone did this exam. The government funded fewer grammar school places for girls. So the pass mark for girls was higher than for boys. If you had boy-girl twins of the same intelligence, the boy might well get into grammar school and university while the equally bright girl would be consigned to a secondary modern, given lessons in needlework, cookery and typing and told to become a secretary if she was really ambitious.

Today, girls are not actively discriminated against. And many of them are doing jolly well. All those cries of 'oh, it MUST be because we are being unfair to boys' are rather suspicious really. Shows just how misogynistic our society still is - men and women.

I think people who attribute the success of girls to them being docile merely add to this line of argument. It's a very old fashioned, reductionist view of womanhood that we are all quiet and well-behaved and obey authority without question.

As for girls being better at coursework, plenty of us did very well under the old O-level system, thanks very much. I went to a single-sex high school where everyone got good grades. What's more, there certainly wasn't a shortage of clever boys in the days when schoolchildren were expected to keep quiet, respect their teachers and speak only when spoken to.

I am the parent of a boy, btw, who I like to think is quite bright. His teachers are kind enough to say so. And I'd be insulted if anyone suggested the system had to be somehow rigged in his favour. I hope he's bright enough to do well at school on his own merits.