Why are teachers failing the narrative for boys, is boy playing incompatible with school

[Leteer]

Does anyone feel like boy play is deeply unsupported and thoroughly discouraged in school up to the point where boys are questioning if play is actually good / encourages boys to question if their hard wired need for play is a bad thing. Isn't this a downward spiral for boys to not support what nature gave them which could in turn affect academic work.

My grandmother graduated medical school in 1938 Dd is going in September that's the best part of 100 uears just in my family that women have been doctors...

But that is not typical. In the 1950s/60s and before many people used to send their sons to University but not their daughters.

I think emily is either a sen girl or a figment of imnagination of boys trying to blame a girl for trying to join in.
I certainly dont see primary girls trying to get boys attention in that way
I see at scouts and from early primary sexist boys (my girl hitting a boy on the head who said 'we dont play with girls' they were 4. This also then went round playgrounds and school with boys saying it. I think at reception age it is somewhat because some girls are very advanced and the boys feel that.

The boys at secondary - as now they are starting to get bigger than the giros so 14 or so - 1 tried to squash 2 girls into a railing for no reason, they dont even know him despite him being in class. However notably both girks clever and academic and in a subject boys are usually better at.

Ideally many boys woukx be put down at least 1 year as girls develop mentally, physically, behaviourally quicker on average.
Imagine it is a bit like you gest in year seem to have adhd likewise it is mainly boys.
My adhd dd was like this immature but clever and not ready for being sat, hated drawing etc in reception.

I think the basic premise of this thread is problematic: this idea that school is "failing" boys because girls' behaviour is better catered for as though that were a new phenomenon - often related to the claim that it's because too many teachers are women.

But it's a fantasy (and misogynistic) version of history: the reality is that for centuries girls were either excluded or limited at school/education. It varied by place and time, but pretty much everywhere, school was invented by and for a largely/totally male population.

And here's the thing that none of those MRAs ever seem to mention: back when schools were run by and for males, was "boy play" encouraged in those education systems? Or was discipline in fact generally REALLY harsh, with boys expected to sit silently for hours at a time, lessons were learned by rote and physical punishment the norm?

So if those are the conditions in which boys thrived, should we bring them back - for boys? Or is this really just a way of blaming mostly female teachers for boys' bad behaviour?

The real question is why are boys and girls not getting enough physical exercise, and why is it schools' responsibilty to provide this?

I agree, but I do think schools should be given the time to include more physical activity. The current curriculum and ofsted requirements are dire and absolutely leave minimal space in the timetable for this. I am constantly surprised that parents are not more up in arms and actively campaigning against the new Ofsted, which is incredibly detrimental to everyone in schools - children and staff.

"Ideally many boys woukx be put down at least 1 year as girls develop mentally, physically, behaviourally quicker on average."

This is a lie we tell ourselves to justify giving girls more caring responsibilities and essentially sexualise them at a younger age. The first thing that older men do to young women and girls when grooming them is tellimg them how different they are from other girls their age due to their advanced maturity.

The rest of society reinforces that by agreeing that girls mature faster than boys. Then apparently that justifies a middle aged rock star getting with a 17 year old groupie etc.

We should stop saying this. Children are children. Yes we can force girls to seem mature beyond their years by forcing them through life experiences that they should not be having, but that's not actually maturity. That's trauma. What you're seeing is the resilience women have to develop to continually cope with traumatic experiences.

All of this is just how we socialise female children differently to male children. Including Emily.

I don’t.

I can take my child for a run around the park, to trampolining, out on his bike, I could enrol him in the many, many clubs that are available to keep kids active.

Beyond the offer of a PE curriculum, and break times etc, I don’t think any more is needed.

I would far rather his time was spent developing his social skills, life skills and of course mainly his academic skills than learning to kick a ball.

Thank you. This idea that boys play one way and girls another is a bit painful to hear. Does this nonsense still persist? DD would be tree climbing and building stuff with the best of them.
As for schools being difficult for boys, as someone else said, schools were literally designed for boys, back in the day, kept in check by physical discipline. Obviously unacceptable now.

Do, pray, cite your peer reviewed sources!

That's fine, but for many children this isnt possible. Also, the curriculum is so ridiculously overloaded that across the country retention has massively dropped. For my own dd, she is also very active in her own time, but I don't think she needs a curriculum that is as broad and therefore rushed as it currently is. Id rather her be given time to explore, discuss and fully understand more of what is taught as I feel this is more beneficial to a child's learning.

Doesn't take much figuring out 🙄

Doesn't take much figuring out. 🙄

Organised sport will probably do more for social and life skills than silently sat in a classroom in a school where you're not allowed to hug a friend. Academia too. So many kids are more prepared to study if they believe a sporting scholarship is a possibility.

Because many parents can't afford after school activities and live in areas where it's unsafe to play outside. That was exactly our situation.

Completely agree.

This is spot on!!

I work in a school, 30 of the 400 pupils are in daily requirement of first aid treatment… for play that the OP describes. It is just not manageable. It shouldn’t be acceptable at all to raise their hands to another child in school for any reason.

Parents in my opinion should stand firm with ALL children that pushing, hitting, strangulation, punching, kicking is NOT acceptable at school. if they do it, expect daily calls that they’ve injured another. If a child “requires this” then enrol them in a club that teaches it correctly OR they could have the class back to their house daily for a rumble!

Children are NOT expected to sit on their bums all day but they ARE expected to not hit other children!

I get that, particularly in terms of out of school clubs, but I think in many cases it’s a case of not doing rather than can’t do.

My brother’s partner for example lives in a costal town. You can genuinely see the beach from her house, it’s about 0.5 miles away. Her 3 kids have never been to the beach. Down the road.

It surely isn’t the school’s responsibility to pick up the slack in that regard.

My mum didn’t drive when we were kids, and I grew up on a rough council estate, she used to pile us onto the bus to the park.

My son has additional needs and on occasion spends more time outside his class than in it, and it actually gets my back up. Sit him down and get him learning, rather than playing on a wooden bridge.

He might not be capable of that, yet or ever.

How many of you spend playtime and lunchtimes on the playground? Enough said.

100% that.

And on the playground you can have upwards of 300, never mind 30.

Back in the day, when we were playing bulldog, parents wouldn't turn a hair at their kids coming home from school with multiple bruises and scrapes. Now... not so much.

If boy mums want but rough and tumble, then they need to stop complaining to the school when their kids get hurt. Because we simply can't police that number of kids so that they don't fall.

Not in the slightest.

If anything, my experience as both a parent and a teacher is that they dominate school spaces.

Boys at DS's primary were forever rolling around the floor, rough housing or making mud pies in the forest area or playing football and rugby.

What you need to remember is that uncontrolled physical games can very quickly descend into chaos and kids getting hurt. Children need to learn self-control. Schools have to keep on top of this stuff.

And let's not forget that the switch back to a majority exam-based test system (over coursework) directly favours boys.

There is no need to 'poor boys' in the current education system, IMO

And I don't buy that they have a 'need' to act out physically, either.

Sure, but can/should schools reasonably replace all that, Their job is primarily to teach, not provide sports training, or even entertainment, really.

Expecting schools to do what hours of playing out in the street after school did for us in the past is impossible, IMO - a large part of the benefit of it was thanks to NOT being supervised by adults. Schools just can't do that, with the best will in the world.

I also think there's a risk, if state schools are forced to compensate for poor local amenities and busy parents, that children in private schools will get even further ahead in their education because they won't be forced to take hours out of classroom time to let children run around.

Parents need to get MPs and local councils to do any number of things to improve the situation. Expecting schools to take this on without extra money will harm state schools. And if the money is available, then maybe it should be used for those after school activities? And to make roads safe for children to walk/cycle on?

The thing is, it is unreasonable to ask the school to provide all the outdoor play, all the sport and all the socialisation, as well as all the education, that they receive in a week.

For the sake of argument, a primary child might be up and around for 13 hours per day - 91 hours per week. They are in school for about 6.5 hours, 5 days per week, a total of 32.5 hours. Of those 32.5 hours, at least 5 are spent in unstructured outdoor play (lunch and playtimes), and 2 in PE (in EYFS and early KS1, the amount of unstructured or structured play is much higher).

So a primary age child spends around 36% of their waling hours in school in term time.

Of those hours, at least 7, so over 20% of the time, is already spent in sport / play.

Is it reasonable to reduce the amount of time spent on non-sport / activity parts of education further, despite the fact that children have nearly two thirds of their waking hours outside school? Is it reasonable that NONE of those outside school hours are spent physically active?

Schools are expected to do everything now