Exiles from boy-orientated teaching

[AdelaofBlois]

Discussion on primary education drifted into gender difference less helpful to OP who clearly believes in it. This thread to continue discussion without over-burdening her thread, which had a specific point.

I'm interested.

I'm a mother of girls who gets fed up with the assumptions that boys need all this extra help when they will end up paid more in adult life!

I haven't read the other thread, so I apologise if I am covering old ground.

I think there is a difference between educating people for the purpose getting a well paid job and educating people so that they have basic life skills.

Many more boys than girls lack basic literacy skills. It is essential that they are given extra help to read and write. The main role of schools should be to educate all children to a basic standard, not to close the pay gap.

Where schools should come in to dealing with the pay gap is by giving girls better careers advice.

Marking my place.

Didn't see the original thread. Can you link?

What is wrong with saying that children who lack basic literacy skills need extra assistance?

I only read the op AdelaofBlois...so I am joining in without having read your views...it annoys me that boys are seen as having more needs right from the off...all these posts about potty training boys..and how boys learn...I wonder if the HT in the other thread would have said what she said to the Mother of a girl!?

I get tired of hearing "Boy will be boys"

I think it's a load of crap...there are boys who learn to read very quickly and very early and there are girls like that too.

How about treating children as individuals?

Are children not treated as individuals then? I need a bit more context as to what the problem actually is that people are annoyed about. Surely children are assessed as individuals and then the ones that need extra help are given it. Most of those children are boys.

Is there a link to the other thread?

I think we need a link

I saw your views on the other thread Adela, and I agreed. Have been watching this thread, but holding back from commenting in case it just ended up as a stream of bile. Very interested in what other people think.

Linky linky mclink please!

Found it:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/primary/1081645-Boy-orientated-teaching

So the other thread is about teaching whole classes in a boy orientated way. I think that is rather a different matter from boys as a group getting more help/resources than boys.

It is the case that boys are more likely to have, for example, autism. So boys as a group get a greater share of the funding for that, and I think the fact that men get paid more than women is absolutely irrelevant to the way that funding is divided.

While I stand by the principle that those who need more help in childhood get more help, I don't agree with a lot being said on the other thread.

Boys starting school are different from girl starting school because they have 3 or 4 years of being treated differently. That shouldn't be a surprise - socio-economic based barriers to learning are in place by 3, so why not gender? Now it would seem certain assumptions are going to be made about children while they are in school with this stereotypical boy based learning.

I would say a big difference is all this 'boys like rough and tumble.' Well a lot of boys don't. A lot of boys are really scared to be knocked over in some chaotic playground, or hit. The teacher does nothing because 'boys will be boys' and the boy is even more scared because he is 4 and no adult will help him. So he learns school is dog eat dog and behaves accordingly. If he had been a girl of course, and been pushed over and hit by another child, the teacher would intervene.

It is all nonsense. Never was DS happier than when he got out of KS1 and was in KS2 where he was able to sit in a calm environment behind a desk all day. I am very glad he did not have to go to a boy orientated school and pretend to enjoy football and being punched in the face.

Milly I agree about boys being just as likely as girls to be nervous of rough play..in my DD's tiny school there are about 6 little boys who love to play rough and the majority of other little ones..I'm talking year 1 and 2 here...the majority prefer to look for conkers or play organised circle games with the girls and the big kids who help them.

I would love to hear more about the socio-economic baed barriers to learning that are in place by the age of 3 Milly...if you have time....are they relevant to both sexes and in what form do they maifest?

Yikes. Where to start.

Good question at the end - about whether the school literally segregate the boys and girls, and have the boys running around doing exciting stuff with the girls inside sitting still and being quiet, or whether they vary the teaching methods for all children.

As to the rest of it... Yikes.

Whoops wrong thread sorry

whether potty training boys is any different i don't know - my scientific sample of two says...character is more important than gender. i think people expect it to be harder, therfore it is...

generally i think these differences are over-egged, and i find 'boys will be boys' an odious phrase generallly used to excuse crap parenting.

people treat girl & boy babies differently, so twould be daft not to recognise the potential for conditioning.

Not the wrong thread, actually, so I'm not sorry at all

I feel sorry for all of the "sensitive" little boys, and there are loads of them, hence it is a stereotype in itself, who are being done a disservice by this lazy stereotyping.

And of course for all the strong, agile, vigorous and active little girls who are being steered as hard as possible away from enjoying their physicality.

ISNT, it's the right thread, you confused me there.

SR, I don't have much knowledge of it. It just seems to be discussed in newspapers when talking about barriers to equality. They refer to studies that have been done that show children from poorer backgrounds are, on average, behind in certain developmental milestones than children from more affluent backgrounds. So children are at different starting points when they start school.

There was also a study that was in the TES years ago about traditional vs creative styles in reception class. The creative style was shown to widen the divide between children from different income groups and between children from different ethnic backgrounds by the end of the reception year. Essentially, while middle class children had been taught how to make the correct responses and interpret what was being covertly asked of them when they were 'playing' in class, because middle class parents effectively coached children in the earlier years in what responses are expected. The other children had been brought up at home to learn in a more structured way, and didn't understand what the teacher's expectations were.

Anyway, this is totally off the point. I just think that if differences between children from different backgrounds is significant when starting school, then learnt gender behaviour is also significant.

In terms of boys, I don't think it is really about feeling sorry for them. I think it is about asking how boys learn to be violent and aggressive and how they become alienated from school. That is a problem for society, not just for boys.

With both my children (a boy and a girl), I have taught them to fight back. Because ultimately you are better off suspended than seriously injured. I know that is controversial, but schools don't protect children very effectively from either physical attack or sexual assault. It would now seem that some schools are not even going to protect 4 year old boys from violence.

Thing it all depends on the class level. I think in my past it was always assumed boys as a group were not acadmemic, couldnt do written work etc and that proved true for most of them. Its what the teachers and adults always used to say when I was young. Eg its harder for boys as they arent as suited to written work etc. I think that is what causes the gap.

This was reiterated recently when I watched Gareth Malones school for boys and it showed how the boys thought reading was for girls, and how they would never be as good as it as the girls etc. I thought it was interesting during that series as well how the boys said men dont read they play xbox and stuff whereas women read. Thats why they didnt read at home and that made the boys worse at it by thinking negatively.

I think when you look around in everyday life that is very true as men do usually do sports or games consoles but you dont really see them reading books regularly. I think this does impacts boys learning in this area and is something I am currently trying to focus on in my role at work with young children.

Also I think rough and tumble is often socialised that is why most boys and girls in upper class families dont do it but in working class families both the girls and boys are often involved in a high level of boisterous play when in groups.

'SR, I don't have much knowledge of it. It just seems to be discussed in newspapers when talking about barriers to equality. They refer to studies that have been done that show children from poorer backgrounds are, on average, behind in certain developmental milestones than children from more affluent backgrounds. So children are at different starting points when they start school.'

I have loads and loads of experience of this and it is 100% true.

re socio economic factors in educationat age three:

the three things which have been explored most are ethnicity, gender and poverty (usually defined by receipt of free school meals). Research shows for example that a Bangladeshi child in receipt of free school meals has a markedly less well developed vocabulary than a White 'middle class' child. Research has also focused on positive and negative reinforcements children receive and shows that FSM is a major factor in children being encouraged and developing thinking skills.

The graphs show that the biggest factor in relative performance is poverty with White FSM boys performing the worst at age 16 and White FSM girls declining in performance rapidly through key stage 4 in particular.

In terms of gender interestingly if you don't adjust for other factors girls perform better than boys across the age range. I'm not putting this very well ( typing with one finger - dd asleep on me) but a graph would show girls' performance from September born through to August born and only then September born boys through to August born - no wonder schools worry about 'summer born boys'.

The stats make me very angry for socio economically disadvantaged children. It's about as uneven a playing field as is possible.

Sorry for the bit of a rant. It's my pet subject.