Gareth Malone - I'm furious at the idea that boys and girls need treating like this

[JaneS]

I've been watching the Gareth Malone 'School for Boys'. I know been discussed elsewhere, but I am really angry and want to know if anyone else feels the same.

The programme is apparently meant to look why boys do worse than girls in school, which I agree is a really important point. However, the solution here is to say that boys need hyper-macho teaching - and the girls don't. Now, I know I should leave aside the fact that for centuries girls underachieved academically, and no-one thought this was remarkable. But I find myself watching this programme and smarting.

When I was at school, I was a tomboy. I liked being competitive (according to this programme, something boys - but not girls - benefit from). I liked being active; I hated sitting still. I was punished for it at school, even though I got good results.

At university, men perform better than women - the opposite of what happens at school. Suddenly, it seems that being outspoken, argumentative, or 'typically male' is an asset. If you are a tomboyish girl, you can't win. At school, you are not sufficiently feminine and polite. At university, you are a girl and so less is expected of you - for your problems are doubtless the result of your timorous feminine nature.

I know I'm coming on strong but I am so cross about this - is anyone with me? I don't doubt boys would benefit from different kinds of teaching, but doesn't this particular approach only make things worse for some girls?

[pointydog]

I think, dittany, although you have not backed up your opinion with any robust evidnce, that I might be about to believe you...

[Indelible]

Not seen the programme, but from what I've read there seems to be much made of "competition" and how it is supposed to be A Good Thing, esp. for boys. I'm hugely skeptical of this and wonder how much solid research is behind that idea? I can't see that fostering competition is very good for either boys or girls.

[pointydog]

I do find that boys respond more obviously to competition than girls.

But some girls seem to like it too.

[TessOfTheBurbs]

I think I agree about competition for the sake of competition, Indelible; when the focus is all about beating so-and-so. It's natural, but it doesn't have to be encouraged to the hilt. Something like a debate is good I think, because it requires you to really think and listen in order to win, and anyone who makes a good effort should be able to take some pride in it, whether their side wins or not. I get a bit twitchy when I see adults encouraging victory dances and chants against the 'losers', or turning every last thing into a competition or race. I think it's good to compete against yourself, and to be inspired and spurred on by other people's performances, but not take it too seriously. In school, more able children can get trapped by the fear of failure if they're used to 'winning', and obviously less able children's confidence will also suffer.

& that goes for boys and girls, of course.

Oh, and I also think there is too much emphasis on pairwork and groupwork in schools... so I'm not sure what my stance is!

[TheFowlAndThePussycat]

I am furious about this too. Since education began children have sat at desks & learned from books. For 100 years boys did best, because it was expected of them, they were encouraged & there was a purpose to it. (a job, primarily). Then we started encouraging girls, expecting them to do well & gave them a purpose. Guess what, the girls out-performed the boys for 30 years. (one might, uncharitably say that they beat the boys at their own game.) However, many children of both genders still underperformed.

Somehow, the conclusion drawn from this is that the system is set up for girls, which is why they outperform boys. What? It's the same system it has always been. But conveniently this makes boys underperformance the fault of girls.

As a teacher, my observation is that any teaching that adopts one tactic only is going to miss out a large chunk of the classroom. All students benefit from a range of approaches & different topics (even within the same subject) benefit from different teaching methods. I'm not keen on idenitfying learning styles, although I'm sure there's some truth in it, because it pigeonholes individuals and encourages them to think they can only learn in one particular way.

The point is that good teaching & learning consists of Reading, writing, speaking, listening, drawing, acting, interpreting, moving, sitting still, singing - all sorts of things.

So in my book this programme sets out to adopts some great teaching methods & only apply them to boys, because girls don't need them apparently.

[ISNT]

I also didn't watch this program, as the trailer led me into a ten minute rant, and I feared that watching the whole thing might make me explode with rage.

Agree with everyone else.

[Takver]

Ditto - couldn't even bear to read the trailer as I knew it would send me ballistic just from the title.

Perhaps we should all write and make these points to the tv co? ? ?

[JaneS]

Fowl - for what it's worth, I know some academics who argue that it's women - mothers - who are primarily responsible for the huge increase in literacy in the late middle ages. Before this, boys were taught to read in monasteries (as were a few girls, though not in Latin, usually). But in the late middle ages, reading became something domestic and also practical.

End of lecture.

Just thought I'd say that since some people still seem to think women are naturally deficient and the last century is an aberration.

Quite tempted about writing the tv co, good idea.

[Pernickety]

I couldn't bear to watch it either and knew that I would be furious.

I have two girls, one who would happily spend her day climbing, running and looking for insects in the woods. My other daughter is less inclined to being physical but I encourage stereotyped 'male' play as much as possible as a counter to the fluffy, girly stuff they are forcefed by everyone else.

I don't recognise this new feminisation of schools. My daughters' school appears to be far more dynamic than my primary school in the 1970/80s. Granted, teachers were freer to teach how they wanted and one or two did, but I remember school being about sitting at tables, doing projects, looking things up at the library, handwriting and times table practice.

In contrast, my daughters' school starts the day with 10 minutes of physical activity, has an outdoor woodland classroom, allotments for each class, weeks when the normal timetable is halted and they focus on science week, or circus skills, interactive whiteboards and computers.

There are so many factors that are contributing to a higher percentage of boys doing badly at school, but I'd start by looking at parents/society's expectations of boys, male role models, and computer games before attacking the education system that has the potential to fail and succeed children of both sexes.

[MrsDoofenshmirtz]

I agree and didn't watch it for that reason. I have three girls. I am sure all of them would rather be up a tree than doing handwriting. The trailer alone made me furious and so I decided to avoid it.

[Pernickety]

I wish I could gather up all your trr climbing girls and send them to a school alongside my daughter. I fear that I am going to start to see her active and entomological traits tempered as she absorbs the message that these things aren't for girls.

[Pernickety]

tree

[MrsDoofenshmirtz]

Don't worry Pernickety it is unlikely. Mine are more likely to tell anyone that tells them its not for girls to bog right off Mine are very aware of these issues I have made sure they are, and I expect you will as well.

[HeavenForfend]

I'm adding my name to the legion of people who didn't watch it (despite loving his choir programmes) because I knew it would make me furious.

I have always loathed the way educational performance is analysed by gender. Children are individuals and should be treated as such.

[MrsDoofenshmirtz]

I really would love to see a girls version of this program what would that look like .....lots of knitting and kneedle work perhaps. [sigh]

[TotalChaos]

Didn't watch it. When was this mythical golden age when boys were allowed to climb trees in school time? And why on earth not see how the more physical approach benefits ALL children.

[LIZS]

dd (year 5) is strong academically and fell out of a tree at school this week ! Not sure what it "proves" tbh. There will be boys for whom this approach doesn't work too but bet we won't see them held as examples.

[ISNT]

Not to mention reinforcing a stereotype of what a male is like which doesn't do the legions of males who aren't like that any bloody favours either.

The whole thing drives me aorund the bend. It does everyone a disservice, why are people so desperate to promote these strict divisions along gender lines? Why, when we were heading for a society where some of these boundaries were beign eroded (eg ability to share time off after a baby between parents), why are people so keen to push back and put girls and boys firmly where they "belong"???