Are the boys being discriminated against?

[bettycat81]

So DS's school have just published their fortnightly newsletter along with award winners (2 winners per class). Out of 14 awards only 4 have gone to boys. It was the same ratio in the last newsletter. So out of a total of 28 awards 8 have gone to boys. DS's class is very boy heavy with 5 girls and 17 boys. 3 out of the four awards have gone to girls. This follows a similar theme to previous years so it's not just a case of the 1st month...

So what is going on here? Does this follow in other schools? Are boys discriminated against generally in education or is it just that at our school the boys across the school are not meeting the requirements to win an award? - (I don't think this is the case). Of course the awards are just a snapshot and I have little knowledge of what goes on in the classroom so would love to hear people's thoughts and experiences.

Completely ignoring that the majority of the boys were involved in Boys Brigade, Scouts, ATC, Cadets etc who all do local charity and community work whereas very few of the girls are involved in the same or similar groups locally. So they get damned once again.

But if the award is for effort in school you can't give an award for being in the ATC. The ATC however can give an award to the boys who attend. If the school gives awards for ATC then does the ATC need to give awards to children at school who don't attend ATC?

OP

Don't worry, your son can coast through school and uni and come out with a low degree and still earn more than his female peers.

Sashh, that statement was referring to the lecturing that the boys and parents were given about the boys not being overly innovative and engaged in charity and community events in the school. Not about awards. Although they did invent some awards for community spirit or something in order to reward a group of girls for something. In the meantime a group of boys were away in Africa building school buildings via scouts and bbs. They weren't looking for reward and would get praise via their own organisations, it was about the perception that boys don't contribute just because it wasn't seen by the head teacher/other staff.

But of course I forgot I'm on mumsnet where we have to be negative about boys and men in every post

Yes, this is definitely a huge problem at my ds's school where eg the whole class is talking but only a few of the boys who have been pre-determined to be 'naughty' get punished. It's only ever the boys - the girls never get punished. It's really, really obvious. And yes, it's all young female teachers who don't have kids or slightly older female teachers who have daughters only. But that's basically the only type of teacher there is at the school.

I also think the comments about young, female teachers 'not getting' boys are offensive and unfair. What a huge generalisation to make based on a few observations.

Boy's behaviour in the classes with this kind of teacher in my school (and the many other local schools I regularly visit) is often better than in those with older female teachers or male teachers. The 'younger' teachers I have seen have more recent knowledge, are more innovative and adaptable in using behaviour strategies and implement routines that encourage active learning and physical movement, which both girls and boys respond to well.

actually, this is why ds goes to a boys only secondary. They love boys, they understand boys and their reward systems are motivating to the boys.

I have to agree. My son goes to a boy's secondary and he loves it far more than the primary school he suffered which was dominated by female teachers who he felt always favoured the girls. Merit certificates etc were usually given to girls and it was girls who always featured heavily in the school newsletters, even down to pictures - sports day photos were usually girls!

I have both flavours of children and visited schools to work with specific children for 15 years before having children. I have come to a conclusion that some teachers are better with boys and some are better with girls. A depressingly small group are good with both (and some are good with neither!).

And yy to boys often having to achieve much more for a bit of glory. Some schools manage a balanced recognition of achievement and effort though, so it's not insurmountable.

We are currently in a very boy-heavy primary and it has been excellent for DS (not so good socially for DD1&2 though). I can see the attraction of single-sex secondaries for boys.

In my DC 's school there is a new VERY young female teacher with a difficult very boy heavy class and she has them completely sussed and under control - I have no idea how - she is quiet gentle and rarely raises her voice but they just want to behave for her !

As the mother of 2 boys and 2 girls I can catagorically say that the system is heavily biased towards girls.

Definitely need more male teachers at primary.

I don't think anyone was saying that all young female teachers are a problem in terms of dealing with boys, I think they were saying that often, when there is a problem, it can be because there is a young female teacher. Given that there are probably more young females going into teaching than any other group then it would be expected statistically but on top of that there are some who seem to be anti male - maybe they are Mnetters?

I have boys only so I accept that I may be biased. However because I am used to dealing with boys I probably find them easier to deal with than girls which frankly scare the life out of me. I'd make a terrible teacher.

Some people are just poor teachers in general, I remember from my own school days that some of the smallest most delicate looking teachers were able to control and teach classes that much more experienced looking teachers just couldn't get a handle on and it wasn't down to punishments being meted out.

mother of 2 boys and 2 girls I can catagorically say that the system is heavily biased towards girls

No. No, you cannot categorically say anything with such a small sample size.

I think I am in a different reality to most posters on this thread. My son is no more or less boisterous than his female friends, and his gentleness, helpfulness and general charm do not go unnoticed by his female teacher (youngish, feminist, has a daughter and no sons).

I hate the idea that we should basically have lower standards of behaviour for our male children.

I always find myself wondering how all those boys in the past managed to sit still, be quiet and behave themselves in the far, far more rigid, inflexible, rote-learning environment of the past to which girls were not admitted.

Nell, I don't think anyone is saying that the need to lower standards for boys, my point certainly wasn't about that, it was the fact that the boys get unfairly pulled up on things for which girls are given the benefit of the doubt, I think that often the boys behaviour is no different to the girls but they tend to be a bit bigger and their voices carry more so my view is that they get more negative attention. I wouldn't want them to receive any benefit of positive discrimination just as I wouldn't want to receive that myself as a woman. It's about treating all pupils fairly imo.

My boys are generally quiet and get on with their work. They are regularly awarded for their effort, however it seems that they are the exception sometimes.

My younger son once got a punishment for taking out his book to read after he finished his maths work. Apparently it was "rude and disrespectful". This was from a (young female if it's relevant) teacher in the class for the day. This was a practice that his usual teacher (young male if it's relevant) actively encouraged. Anyway it was the last day of term, so because he was then marked down from Green to Amber on the chart, he missed the end of term movie afternoon. He hadn't been of Green for the entire year (in fact I think that may have been the only time in primary he wasn't on green) He was obviously upset and his punishment ironically was to sit in the library and read. Many staff saw him upset and none of them thought to question why he was there. I made a complaint when I found out and I got an apology, no-one ever bothered to apologise to him.

Sure, Wankers - I absolutely take your point about some teachers (as well as some parents) perceiving girls as inherently better behaved, believing that girls' versions of events are the more truthful, etc. I'm not in a position to comment on how widespread it might be but I can very readily believe it happens at least in some schools.

What I absolutely do object to, though, is the posts which say things like "girls behave in a way most primary school teachers approve of" or "the criteria for selection are too narrow if boys cannot achieve the targets". To the extent that these generalisations about behaviour are true, I think they're only a reflection of how we (collectively) are prepared to tolerate more noise and movement from boy children, and how we crush it out of girl children from a very early age. This is damaging for everyone. I think boys and girls are equal, I think they're equally capable of sitting quietly and complying if they're equally expected to do so. I do not accept that girls have any natural advantage here.

The stuff about different teachers / schools "understanding" boys (or not), though - that's very very hard to get my head around, from the perspective of believing that gender is a social construct. I "understand" boys are placed in a peculiar position when they are often expected/encouraged to fight or run or shout, more so than girls, and then are thought of as less well-behaved as a result. I "understand" that expecting boys to think less, to feel less, to be stronger than they feel, leads directly to all sorts of emotional and behavioural problems. I understand (only too well!!) that being stereotyped on account of one's gender is unpleasant, and can easily be self-perpetuating. Is that what's meant here? Or is there some inherent maleness that I'm failing to understand, like all these inept young female teachers?

I haven't thought about it that deeply. I seriously think that something is going on when girls are awarded in such vastly inflated numbers compared to boys when boys are as insecure as girls and need all the encouragement and praise they can get....if they deserve it.

Why that is I'm not sure but my son's perception and that of others is that boys are not given the same benefit of the doubt that the girls are.

It's almost as if they have been demonised and effectively as soon as they deviate from perfect it has to be clamped down on in case they end up getting out of control or something. Whereas the expectation is that girls will not get out of control and are therefore given a longer leash.

Who knows, but there is something going on.

I work in a specialist role in education and have been to many schools and worked with hundreds of teachers. Young female teachers are as capable of dealing with boys as anyone else. Negative generalisations like that are meaningless and don't help anyone.
I don't think that boys are discriminated against. Attention and behaviour problems are more prevalent in boys than girls, which is probably why girls are winning more awards, but it also means girls get less attention from staff as behaviour management is very time consuming.
I have a boy. He's capable of behaving and attending well and if he doesn't I will never excuse him with the "boys will be boys" crap because it will do him no favours in the long run.

Funny that 42 messages in, no-one has considered that the girls might have got those awards on merit. If girls achieve something it's always because the system is stacked in their favour (positive discrimination, feminised culture) but if boys win the majority of awards then it's just natural.

BTW looking at a leaflet for DS's chess club (KS2) and every single one of the past 3 years' winners is male (out of 12). And yet you would have thought chess would be prejudiced in favour of girls as boys apparently find it so hard to sit still, be quiet and concentrate.

My personal view is there are too many awards. DS has brought home 3 so far this term (in spite of his in-built, penis based disadvantage). Schools need to chill out with the certificates and badges.

Ritchy I've never suggested that they aren't getting the awards on merit. In my case there isn't a finite amount of awards, I'm sure that the girls who were awarded earned the awards. I'm concerned about the disparity of such low numbers of boys being similarly awarded. There is such a huge disparity that there is something going on. My son (who was awarded) says that he feels that boys seem to get punished for things that girls get away with. That's his view and perception. Having that perception is an issue in itself.

Makes a change though ......

What "makes a change"?

Funny that 42 messages in, no-one has considered that the girls might have got those awards on merit. hmm If girls achieve something it's always because the system is stacked in their favour (positive discrimination, feminised culture) but if boys win the majority of awards then it's just natural
The children who are winning awards will definitely be getting them on merit. To win them, generally kids have good attention and behaviour. Boys are as capable of this as girls are. Parents of boys who are struggling in these areas should be concentrating on supporting them to do better, rather than complaining that they should have more awards that boys can win (what would that even entail?) or blaming young female teachers for "demonising" boys.
Ime on balance, girls do not get away with more than boys in schools but some parents do have lower expectations for boys' behaviour vs girls.

Okay, so what's your theory for why 41/60 girls get an award whereas only 7 out of 80 boys do, given that this is a school with very little in the way of discipline issues? I'm not suggesting that those girls didn't deserve their awards or that boys need different standards.

I agree with you Siena. My post was sarcastic.

My theory would be that the girls and boys who won the awards did so on merit.