Primary school headteacher - sexist?

[Octoberrat]

We went to look round a primary school today, as our DD will be starting school in September.

The headteacher was showing us their outdoor space and he said, "It's great because boys - and some girls - like to play robustly outdoors."

Do you think this is sexist? It really set my teeth on edge. They asked for feedback at the end of the visit, and I wrote down that I was disappointed to hear such gendered language from a leader, but now I'm second-guessing myself and wondering if I was overreacting.

He should have just said children.

Yep, I have heard that about every teacher unfortunately, good or bad. I have been tearing my hair out because they just didnt think it was necessary to expect both ds to do better at spelling for example (but thye would have for a girl etc...)

Ds1 has also been very grumpy on numerous occasions (and complained they were being sexist ) because he was being punished for something that happened on the playground and 'all boys' were punished but none of the girls were. Even though some boys weren't involved and some girls were involved.
And he was right tbh. It IS sexist.

it was a bit of a twatty thing to say and would make me wonder in what other aspects he primarily would consider boys with girls as an afterthought.
Why not just say 'children' as the head of a mixed school?
Honestly OP, find a different school. If you are an atheist the church school will get on your tits even more over the years.

Totally agree we would prefer a secular school, and are hopeful we will get into the not-yet-built secular school. We are equidistant from that school and the faithy-sexisty one.

Other options are either unrealistic (not an atheist's chance in hell of getting in), or else even more faithy.

It is a separate topic, but I am utterly enraged that my taxes go towards schools that can either exclude children on the basis of religion, or else indoctrinate them in unproven stories.

He was making an observation, boys tend to like to play outside but some girls, too. He was probably saying that in case your DD might want to so you would know she wouldn't be alone.

Now if he were saying it with a condescending tone, making fun of the girls that do, that would be different. But just pointing out what is happening, how is that sexist? Should he have just said "kids"?

in general libprog, children like to play outside...

and do both genders equally make use of open fields to play robust sports?

'Should he have just said "kids"?

Yup - in infant school 'children' is usually the appropriate word, there really should rarely be any reason to use 'boys and girls'. Lazy gendered thinking negatively impacts both sexes (as in Hummus's DSs case as well as the girls who are being given the maths stereotype threat etc)

as I recall Lib, yes...

ErrolTheDragon

but he said boys and girls, he was including both genders, just as children includes both genders. So really the problem is the specification of "some" girls.

Maths is interesting though, should one force girls to take maths? Are you implying the only (or maybe decisive) reason they "think" they don't like it, is because people think girls can't do maths or shouldn't or don't want to? In Hongkong girls outperform boys at maths, not insignificantly either apparently.

"I have a boy and a girl and I can see the inherent stereotypical differences in them."

The science disagrees. For example:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030576/
Boys and Girls on the Playground: Sex Differences in Social Development Are Not Stable across Early Childhood

"One of the many, and perhaps most striking, paradoxes of gender studies is that, despite decades of concerted efforts, the very existence of sex differences remains debated [1]–[3]."

We definitely expect differences, and it has been clearly shown (ALice Roberts TV show), that the way we treat babies etc differs based on their assumed sex. So we assume (despite the evidence), that a male baby can crawl down a steeper slope than a female of the same age. That if people think a baby they have been left with is a girl, they steer it towards the dolls (and feel they have done right when it chooses the doll), and similarly with cars for the boys. So what they chose seems to depend on what we think they should, rather than who they actually are.

Even if there are innate differences, seems our social expectations and interactions acts to make these differences bigger than they actually are. It's us not nature, so it would seem to a large extent................

As I've posted at my all girls primary school the vast majority of us would play outside at breaks, lots of charging around, shouting, general "robustness". The idea that girls don't generally want to do this is complete nonsense. However I have noticed just from observing the green near my local station on my way back from school in the summer months, with pupils from a mixed secondary school nearby, the boys tend to have a game of football going on whilst girls clearly in the same group sit and chat (often a few boys will be doing the same, but rarely see the girls playing). I wonder if this stems from attitudes ingrained early on in some mixed schools, where it's expected boys will enjoy being active and girls are almost discouraged. I have two younger brothers (who have both always gone to all boys schools) one very sporting, one would definitely rather be indoors reading. Children should be free to be as they wish not stereotyped due to gender.

At my girls' school competitive sport is a big thing, lots of us are in teams and love playing all sorts of sports, oh and Maths is one of the most taken A Level subjects (all the sciences have a good take up too) and at the boys' school I have some friends at English Literature has a very big A Level group. I don't think it can be a coincidence that single sex schools tend to veer away from what is stereotypically expected.

This teacher should just have said "children" and should try to ensure all children are free to play in the way they wish, girls and boys, free of expectation or gender stereotyping.

Out of interest, and I'm not being goady,- I have great respect for teachers, but do teachers get training on this type of thing? I suppose it's really diversity training.
It was almost 10 years ago when I volunteered in school, but I thought things had changed hugely, and teachers would't be using this type of language, but sadly it appears that I'm wrong..

lib actually another question would be, are girls givemn space on the playground to use outdoor space the way they want?

What I have seen at my dcs school is boys taking up the whole playground playing football whilst girls have to do with the side lines if they arent happy to play football.
I'm pretty sure there has been studies about that too.

petitpois actually I believe that its the training they get that is the issue. Because the emphasis is so much on 'ensuring girls arent left behind in maths' or that 'you need to make the subject interesting. So lets have a game with pirates to be attractive to boys' that the default position is that the easiest way to adapt to children's need is to put them into categories, boys and girls.
They are creating a system where the normal way to categorise children, to be able to 'differenciate' is to separate boys and girls. Then its becoming habit and self confirmation 'Look little Jo is struggling with reading. Its normal he is a boy. I shouldn't ask for much more'

Disclaimer: I am not a teacher so cant comment on the real training they get. But answers and attitudes from my dcs teachers tells me that it was what they remember/get out of it iyswim

libprog - are you familiar with the concept of 'stereotype threat'? It's well worth learning about if you're not, as it's a pervasive issue which affects people of both sexes not always reaching their full potential.

It's a rum thing - that one of the ways that effectively overcomes gendered stereotype threat (to some exent) is sex-segregated schools - my DD goes to an all girls secondary, so she's doing A level maths, FM and physics with a peer group of girls who are extremely able in those subjects. The idea that 'girls cant do maths' is demonstrably untrue. The robotics club is obviously meant for girls. The markings on the sports field for football are because girls play football.

ErrolTheDragon no I am not familiar with that terminology, but much like what I am familiar with, herd behavior, I assume it means exactly what it says on the tin and stems from the same psychology - people don't want to the odd one out, they want to conform, they do what they think is expected, they do what others do, etc.

I fail to see how this is relevant though, or even applicable in a situation where people are having an argument online about whether someone should have said children instead of boys and girls. Unless of course you are advocating completely removing the labels boys and girls and treating people wholly equally (i.e. same sex public toilets, too, etc.)

I'm still wrapping my sport-hating introverted head around the idea that outdoors is only for robust play ... Are children who prefer more gentle play encouraged to go outdoors?

I'd be a bit but probably wouldn't think further about it unless there were quite a few other indications of sexism at the school.

In your case I'd be more worried about the faith aspect. What can you say sorry to God for today - FFS.

I don't think its exactly the same thing as herd behaviour, though somewhat related.

If girls are exposed to the the (untrue) idea 'girls cant do maths', this can actually affect their test scores. If they're given a test paper which has an M/F tickbox at the top, they will be liable to underperform relative to a test where they aren't given this gender cue. There's been trials of the phenomenon, it's really quite gobsmacking how insidious it can be.

So - if children are at school where they're given stereotypes (in this case, boys like robust play, oh and as an afterthought some girls) then this can affect their choices and eventually their competence.

Start off treating kids the same. Distinguish between girls and boys if there is a valid reason on the basis of sex not 'gender' for doing so e.g. loos and changing rooms (and even that may not be needed for small children). Let them make their choices as individuals. Is there any rational reason not to do that?

I didn't say they have the same psychological basis (for occurring).

So wouldn't you say specifically mentioning girls as in despite what the stereotype be, here girls also participate in x, y, z?

Errol re stereotype threat - I read fairly recently that the evidence for that has come into question, with attempts to replicate the original findings failing to do so. There's a section about this in the Wikipedia entry under stereotype threat that says: The literature may reflect selective publication of false-positive effects in underpowered studies, where large, well-controlled studies find smaller or non-significant effects.

Quite a few previously unquestioned findings in psychology are starting to be questioned, to the extent that people are talking about a "replication crisis".

Boys and some girls like to play robustly at our primary school. It's a simple fact.

They aren't wired differently, they're socialised differently.

I don't think I would have been brave enough to say something ( just gone home and quietly fumed). But I'm glad you did. That's what a feedback form is there for and with any luck will prompt him to have a think about language used and maybe underlying attitudes.