Is this school programme sexist?

[MerryMarigold]

It's come to my attention that my kids' school has a programme called something to do with future leaders... But it seems to be for boys only. As far as I can gather (in the words of my son) it's for if you are "really badly behaved or really well behaved." They miss 2 lessons per week (and seem to play sports) and it goes on for 3 years. He's pretty gutted not to be on it but I feel more upset that having asked my DD (same year group, twins) if there is something for girls and she says she's not aware of anything. Is this programme something any of you are aware of? What do you think of it? Should I bring it up with school or does it look like sour grapes?

Well I would defo contact school and be asking some questions to find out more

That sounds very odd and unlikely. Are you sure your ds hasn't misunderstood what it's for or what the criteria are for being involved? If it's a programme aimed at, for example, boys with behaviour problems, the school isn't exactly likely to openly tell the kids that, for fear of stigmatising the boys involved.

@lazylinguist

It’s possible a programme for underachieving White boys who the school receives a pupil premium for as they’ve been in the media loads recently.

Yes, I was thinking something like that. That was why I was a bit baffled by the 'really badly-behaved or really well-behaved' thing.

I'm assuming the really well behaved are there to be good examples? I know the really well behaved boys and they definitely are amazing kids. Which is also why it can be referred to as future leaders and not 'behaviorally challenged boys play sports'. Do you think the well behaved ones are being taken advantage of? They miss 2 lessons a week which doesn't seem great.

User582etc, what questions should I be asking?

Well if it's based on underachieving boys rather than behaviourally challenging ones, it could still include well-behaved ones. It could have been done simply by looking at their SATs scores and comparing them with where they're at now progress-wise, for example. Or is could be based on another marker like FSM. I very very much doubt the well-behaved kids have been selected merely as good examples.

The well behaved kids are all very high achievers.

I'm assuming it is something to do with leadership. It's just a bit confusing. I'll ask HoY then if I can understand more about it.

I've sent her an email which basically says I'm confused, would like to know more, and whether there is also a girls' group.

The well behaved kids could well be on the Pupil Premium list too.

Depending on what comes back in in email this could actually be a good thing.

All this pretending girls and boys are the same and that everyone has to be involved with everything can often be a bad idea.

It would actually be quite refreshing to see or hear of a school that can and has named the demographic that needs help/support and provided it in a way that's specifically meant for that demographic, of that makes any sense.

There may well not be something for the girls on that sense because the girls problems may not be the same things and that particular program may not be aimed at girls.

All depends what it is though.

Is it state comprehensive OP? Academy run?

It could be some sort of mentoring type programme, mixing the badly behaved underachievers with the very high achievers, rather than having them sitting in the bottom set all the time feeding off each others' poor behaviour. Whether it's sexist or not probably depends on the specifics of the scheme, and what they are trying to achieve. It's worth bearing in mind that at school level, girls generally out perform boys, it's only later in life that this turns around.

Jangly, it is an academy run state comp (Ofsted outstanding a few years ago). I've just checked and it's 14.8% on FSM. The classes are not set at all except for Maths and Science, which is divided into 2 abilities (from Y8) so the 'badly behaved' are not festering in bottom sets. They don't do academic work in this group so far, it's just been Sport. This is why I'm wondering if it's relationship building, good examples etc. If so, I'm still not sure what benefit that has to those high achieving kids who are missing lessons to do this. It's interesting for sure.

The high achieving, well behaved kids are definitely not pupil premium. I know a few of them, close friends with 2 of the families. They do all have parents who are ESL (although the children speak English at home due to parents speaking different languages from one another).

Yes, it could be a scheme to help low achieving boys. I guess boys and girls don't necessarily both need this, but girls should be raised to be leaders too, if indeed that is what it's about for the high achieving children.

Will let you know of response to email.

It's hard to say what this is, but I have no problem with girl or boy specific programs. Over the years I've seen plenty of girl specific programs for leadership, computer related stuff, science, etc.

Two things I would point out specifically. One is that because of differences in development, at certain ages if you have a mixed group, the girls tend to take charge and dominate in terms of being organizers and leaders. That's fine for them but it's actually quite beneficial for boys to have to step up and do these things themselves.

But it's only in the last few years that people seem to have noticed that there is a whole cohort of boys who have fallen behind in many ways, and don't follow the same trajectory as the young women, and that maybe there are larger social consequences to this.

I'm not suggesting it should be a mixed group.

And clearly, there are very good reasons for specifically targeting young women in STEM. However, if it's leadership then there should be an equivalent programme for girls (not necessarily the same programme). Indeed, I would have thought leadership programmes were even more essential to young women.

behaviorally challenged boys play sports

FFS
Do you want them to improve or do you want to label them?

Its called what it is to try and encourage them to want to be a part of it and to try and break (what I suspect) is bad/poor behaviour on the part of the boys.

There are many other variations of this called many different things and some are even coed.

Oh dear, sense of humor failure there! I was begging sarcy. If course it wouldn't be called that, even if it was that and all the kids knew it.

Being sarcy

"seems" to be.

Absolutely won't be just for boys

I'll let you know when I know!

If it does turn out to I a boy only thing, Just please don't do what the men/males do with the women only sessions at gyms/pools etc and get it shut down, as opposed to suggesting that they run something similar alongside, for the girls.

There's been too much of that.

It definitely could be just for boys. We had a programme very similar targeting our top and bottom BOYS only. Lowest attainers for obvious reasons and top boys to develop skills for further education and employment.
It drove me crazy and no there was no alternative for girls, this was last year in a state secondary.

It drove me crazy and no there was no alternative for girls, this was last year in a state secondary

Fairness question aside, as obviously girls should get the support or stretching and character development opportunities they need too. Given the usual plan to deal with disruptive behaviour from boys in class, which is very often down to inability to access the class or boarding either through not understanding or it all being to easy, is to just shove them next to the well behaved quiet girls to absorb. This does sound like a more productive beneficial way to combat those particular issues that will of course also benefit the girls who hopefully now don't have to be used as behaviour management so much.

Hmmmm the issue being in my particular school and cohort the behaviour of the girls and the level of exclusions was just as high. Yet no programmes existed. I had no issue in tackling poor behaviour through the programme. I had a big problem with the gender divide which meant that boys who caused less issues got a place over girls who caused way more issues.