Why do we have such low expectations of boys

[AbbyR1973]

Often I read threads on here about reading/writing/maths and inevitably sooner or later someone pops up with a comment like "well he is a boy" or "boys aren't developmentally ready until they are 6" etc etc...
I find this very depressing and clearly is a message that is getting through to the boys themselves.
DS1 who does extremely well at school in year r and is by far and away ahead of his peers actually said to me last week "Mummy boys have weaker brains than girls." I was horrified that he should say something like that as a matter of fact. Heaven only knows where he heard it!!
We need to give our boys positive messages.

iPad other than the books aimed at boys (wouldn't help ds3 who loves fairy stories) all those activities are good for children regardless of gender.

Our school has outdoor lessons and encourages them to bring in stuff from home and families to be involved in learning. Its good for all the children not just boys.

Absolutely 5madthings. The girls love to actively learn and get muddy at Forest School.

Mrbuttercat what do they do then? How do they enthuse the children? (And I mean children there - girls also need active learning.)

This has rather grown in my absence. It's a thought provoking discussion.
The "we" in the thread title refers to the community/nation.
I really feel that the big issue at present is expectations for boys. There appears to be an expectation that at the end of the day boys won't do as well as girls, as reflected in declining results for boys at educational exit level compared to girls.
Whilst there may be subtle average differences between boys and girls early development, these differences are so subtle that in medicine we only have single standard chart for developmental norms compared to for example growth charts which are differentiated by gender. On average for example girls develop language at 12 months, boys at 13 months but by 21/2 years there is no average difference in language skills.
If you look at population studies of intelligence there is no difference between genders in terms of average score but there is a wider distribution of boys (more boys at both extremes)
All of this tells us there should be no difference in performance at outcome, but there is.
I read so many negative comments about boys and their learning that I can't help but wonder if this message is being transmitted to boys at an early age.
I agree with ipadquietly re computer games, cartoons etc. DS's aged 4&5 have limited screen time, are not allowed to watch violent cartoons like Ben 10 at all and are not allowed to play violent based computer games. I think many parents don't filter TV based on age appropriateness and certainly I am aware that DS is probably the only boy in his class that doesn't watch this stuff. I also think that many parents don't operate any kind of screen time rationing.

I really feel that the big issue at present is expectations for boys. There appears to be an expectation that at the end of the day boys won't do as well as girls, as reflected in declining results for boys at educational exit level compared to girls.

But they still find it easier to get a job and earn more. I think they know this (at graduate level not 5 year olds)

It's not just in schools either, when DS was not moving much before birth the midwife said "Oh, he's just being a lazy boy" and when he was very shy people would say, disparagingly, that he was a "Mummy's boy" - there seem to be a lot of people in our culture who are very down on boys.
I tell him that he is my best boy and make sure he knows that he is just as clever as his sister; he knows she is doing well at school and has the mistaken idea that he isn't for some reason.

"there may be subtle average differences between boys and girls development"

This might be true, on average, but the distributions are different between the sexes. For example, there will be significantly more boys with language delay than girls (it varies from study to study, but it is probably in the region of 4:1). I have observed at my own dc's school that not only are the bottom groups heavily biased towards boys, but also the top groups.

There is also a difference between having low expectations of boys and appreciating that they are often later to get started academically. Both sexes can be late developers, and it is important that the education system allows for this. The fact that this trait is more prevalent in boys is perhaps only relevant in that if late developers are not catered for it will statistically impact more boys.

I think you can have zero tolerance to lazy stereotyping and recognise that there are serious problems with the early years curriculum that disadvantages many children. A syllabus that includes more time outside and a massive push to get moreen into primary schools would benefit all our children.

Moreen should be men!

Helpyourself - I agree, useful to have male role models when so many do not have a positive male role model if they do not have a father at home and, in the case of boys, do not take part in sport outside of school where many of the coaches are male.

And there is also the increasing problem of many children having a series of 'fathers'. This doesn't encourage consistency or a male role model. At least three children in my class are on their second or third daddy, and they're only seven. It doesn't inspire trust.

On another tack, ime mummies do a lot of organising and molly coddling of boys, whereas girls are expected to be more independent.

Wrong again Ipad.

I don't mollycoddle my dd any more than my boys.Again sweeping generalisation.

And I know very few kids who have had a series of dads.Marriage rates are down but not being married doesn't mean dads don't father. 23 years unmarried here,my dp is extremely involved.

The fact is boys have nigh on zero male teachers,my boys are 9 and have never had one.School is female dominated and organised as such,boys aren't stretched and boys cope less well than girls with the current education style. There is generalisation,stigmatising,belittling and prejudice.

It stinks to be frank.

Far too many parents make sexist generalisations. Men own 99% of the world's wealth and make 66% of its income and about 80% of positions of power in the UK so whatever we are doing with boys it is hardly going wrong.

78 a very, very small proportion own the world's wealth and to be frank I'm utterly sick to death with the argument of life waaaaay further down the line justifying a crap system in schools.

78bunion, when the men in those positions were educated, school was very different place to be then. Now schools are completely different - group work, moving around the classroom, interactive learning, talk for learning are some examples whereas it used to be all sitting in rows and listening to the teacher and getting on with it.
The education system then, when compared with the social environment at the time clearly favoured boys but both the education system and the social environment have changed massively since then and clearly boys will not be in the same positions re the amount of wealth, income and power that they have in the world because of those changes.

Historically, once the concept of universal education was established, girls' secondary education was modelled on boys' secondary education, which was, in its turn, modelled on boys' Public School education. Of course, only a tiny percentage of boys and girls (about 15%) went on to an academic secondary (grammar school) education but those who did followed this 'male' education model. I don't have the statistics for GCE pass rates sorted by gender but I do know that when it came to the 11+, the pass rate was lower for boys than for girls in the 1950's & 60's. So the girls who went to Grammar school were actuallymore academically able than a significant number of the bboys.

Does this mean that girls responded better to the traditional 'sit still in rows', rote learning model of primary education or were they just beating the boys at their own game?

It would be interesting to see if the GCE results reflected this gender imbalance.

Having personally experienced it, I can also say that it was expectations for girls that were low at the time. Out of about 100 girls in my year group (all girls grammar school) only about half went on to do 'A' levels and perhaps 15 went to University.

And lets not forget the very tiny minority that own the nations wealth were privately educated in single sex schools- says it all really and pretty much gives a perfect example of how boys stuck in the female dominated state sector get the shitty end of the stick.

There are 5 male teachers in my dds' state primary. Not bad.

I can't say I see expectations being any lower for boys than girls there, but don't know about other state primaries!

maizieD, there was a big report on this but I can't find the link for it as I have it at work. It gave (amongst a lot more information) the % of pupils getting 5 GCEs/5 GCSEs A-C between when O levels were introduced in the early 1950s and the year of report. It showed that slightly more boys passed 5 O levels until about 1970, after which slightly more girls passed 5 O levels. The gap between girls and boys achievement really opened with the introduction of GCSEs in 1987. The real eye opener in the report was how few girls passed physics and chemistry in the 1950s and 60s.

MrButtercat,

What I was trying to say was that girls were doing better in a male devised model of schooling which was designed to educate males.

I have no doubt that privately educated children did (and still do) better but the model of education was much the same, private or state, if better tuaght and with better resources. Monopoly of 'top' jobs and wealth has as much to do with 'who you know' as with education.

CecilyP.

I'm not surprised that fewer girls passed physics and chemistry in the 1950s and 60s. We weren't encouraged to go down that route! I don't know how old you are, so you may not remember it, but even we Grammar School girls were mostly only expected to have a 'career' which would bridge the gap between school and marriage... This may not have been true of all girls' Grammar Schools but it certainly was at mine. We even (top 10% of female ability!) had a 'stream' which was channeled towards 'domestic science' and away from the sciences.

In a way, the present day worry about boys' perceived underachievement/low expectation of boys feels slighty ironic in view of the low expectations that girls have had to live with for centuries.

Arrgh...'taught'

CecilyP

Probably not the report you cited but some comment on gender differences in 'O' level results 1950s - 1980s

www.earlhamsociologypages.co.uk/genddata.htm#and

Our last inspection report highlighted boys achieving better in maths and girls achieving higher levels in writing. Our data shows a wider spread of boys in literacy, heavier at both ends. At school we don't have different expectations but some (and only some) parents do - i have had comments made to me at parents eve like 'boys are lazy' etc. Children are aware of this and in some cases have even been present when comments like tgat are made!
We have bought in 'boy books' according to the marketing such as project x - which most children enjoy regardless of gender.
With my own children b/g twins i've resisted having a pink/ blue approach - he has watched more princess films than most boys his age and is entirely unaware of that. And she's the more fidgety of the two - I'd class both as having high energy levels and have always spent lots of time outside with them.
The problem is that differences between genders are inspected and feature in school improvement plans when in reality multiple factors influence achievement.

Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine makes very interesting reading on this subject. As both a primary school teacher and the mother of a boy I feel that the differences in behaviour between the sexes are hugely attributable to socialisation, and this book debunks a lot of the theories of physiological differences. I certainly get very fed up with the stereotypes of boys that I see everyday, which I certainly discourage in the classroom but which are often reinforced by parents. My son is not rough, or overly boisterous, he doesn't fight, is very articulate and is achieving at the top of his class despite being a summer born boy (apparently doomed to failure). In fact in my class (Reception) I have a lot of boys like him, and a fair few girls who are very physical and certainly don't sit quietly! They are all individuals, and I try to teach and respond to them as such.