"Boys can make the grade, if they're not bored"

Parent Cafe
41

<p>‘Good for society’ conversations make make my skin crawl, frankly. I wouldn’t want anyone applying that pressure to my life. I will assume the same holds true for children. Maybe it’s my years living under a totalitarian regime. That way lies danger.</p>

<p>My boys attended a highly traditional, English style high school where they were given opportunities to do all the work in class–which they took full advantage of. ‘Discussions’ were held to a minimum. They loved it. They both hated the Harkness classroom where they were forced to listen to all sorts of inane and uneducated comments by their peers. That was a giant waste of time in their opinion. </p>

<p>I had to sit in on a few Harkness classrooms to see how inane the comments were–and how frustrating it was to pretend to be polite for eight hours listening to that ‘Real World-esque’ drivel. Maybe Harkness works at Exeter where so many children come in from different parts of the globe–but it doesn’t work well in regular suburban America. The children’s comments simply aren’t that interesting.</p>

42

<p>I can predict the discussion to follow. Those on this board who are generally libertarian/conservative/Republican will find the idea of teaching - even really teaching it not just paying it boring claptrap lipservice - cooperation to be so much pap. Those on this board who are generally liberal/Democrat will think it worthwhile. And will also prefer no hogwash. No pap. No blithering or blabbering. That’s how we feel about politics, that’s how we feel about society, that’s how we feel about our personal relationships. </p>

<p>And sjmom, sure we teach kids in their styles but we do also socialize them. And we choose our priorities in that socialization.</p>

<p>So say I, to quote one of us. So say I.</p>

43

<p>Just to be clear with my views here. I think teaching cooperation is definitely worthwhile. I just think, especially where boys are concerned, there has to be a clearly defined structure to the cooperation. I don’t think it is really about hierarchy, though hierarchy is involved. It seems to be about roles.</p>

<p>When I work with boys and just tell them to get together to do stuff, they spend a lot of time wondering what it is I want them to do. When I tell them to just do the project, tons of them “check out”.</p>

<p>But when I say something like</p>

<p>“Fellas, we got a job here to do. We have ten different positions to fill in order to get this job done. Who wants to be the ‘A’ guy? (Ten hands go up). Who wants to be the ‘B’ guy (etc. etc.)…”</p>

<p>When I do this, what happens is the hierarchy and jockeying for position takes place in the assignment of the roles. Once those roles are set and the boys know their duty to the team, very little stands in the way of them getting the job done. They are some incredibly focused kids. You see the same thing taking place on sports teams all over America. Many boys play in certain positions for years, positions they really don’t want to play—and they do very well because they feel in their bones their own value to the team. When they see how their role fits into the team, and how the team is really counting on them to deliver, they don’t get bored. That is because it isn’t about the specific job anymore, but about their duty to do the job well.</p>

<p>I think boys want respect. They want to be respected by other boys and they have figured out that a very quick way to lose respect is to fail. Many boys would much rather act as if they don’t care about something than fail at it.</p>

<p>Just my two…</p>

44

<p>It is encouraging to see some school districts, like the one cited in the OP, trying new strategies to engage boys. I agree that boys don’t have the right to disrupt the class or diss the teacher just because they’re bored, but does that mean we have to stand in the way of reforms that would make education less boring for boys? I don’t think so. Maybe boys are dissing, and ditching, the system, in greater numbers recently because the system has become more hostile to them. Maybe the way they see it, they were dissed first and no one cared. This topic got a pretty thorough going over in the Newsweek cover story awhile ago. For anyone who missed it: <a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>In a side essay, a feminist scholar and mother of sons addresses some of the bad behavior, or disdain, being discussed: </p>

<p>“What often appears as boys’ intransigence, as disruptiveness, indifference, or confrontation, may instead be a refusal to engage in false relationship. It is in the adamancy of this refusal that boys will be boys, turning away from rather than seeking to repair or smooth over such ruptures as girls tend to do. This may explain why more boys disconnect from school. It also suggests, as my work with girls has shown, that an effective strategy for preventing boys’ psychological difficulties and educational problems would involve recognizing their sensitivities, building honest relationships and strengthening a healthy capacity for resistance.”</p>

<pre><code>The problem for us as a society is that the majority of American boys who struggle in school don’t have fathers at home to provide a sense of responsibility and discipline, and are not attending schools making any effort to address their needs and learning styles. They are not attending the single-sex, small, alternative, private high schools with hand-picked students and low student-teacher ratios that do the best job of education in this country. Far from it.
</code></pre>

45

<p>I don’t see that teaching students according to gender means that boys are not taught cooperation or that girls can’t be competitive. I see a false dichotomy here between treating boys and girls as somewhat different, yet trying to achieve comparable outcomes. The goals are the same, the path may be different. From what I see at my boys’ school, there is a great deal of cooperation and teamwork – in fact, that’s the essence of a lot of male activities. I just don’t think treating boys and girls as the same helps either gender. I also fail to see any political aspect of this – as in the SUV thread, I’m sure there are people who represent a variety of political outlooks supporting the idea that boys and girls are different educationally. For example, I’m sure that weenie and I differ in many political opinions, yet share our experiences with an all-male school. I don’t think I’d consider Cheers to be a conservative, libertarian, Republican (don’t mean to speak for you – just my perception!) but I think she shares some of the ideas about genders being different.</p>

46

<p>

Of course you have no way of knowing how my kids have been socialized, but I can assure you that everyone who comes into contact with them would describe them as polite, helpful, cooperative and kind. And, yes, male. Just like their father.</p>

<p>I really hope this thread doesn’t deteriorate into another political thread. The discussion has merits which will be lost if that happens.</p>

47

<p>I agree the discussion has merits. Particularly when we communicate in detail, as have the teachers describing their days, or Drosselmeier describing his approach to his boy pod. I was pointing out the tendency of these threads to follow a political divide just in order to avoid that. </p>

<p>Please believe me I would never assume that your kids are badly socialized. I really do not impute anything bad on anyone’s kids. Not remotely. I only mean to point out that schools are a cultural institution that reflect the social priorities of the culture as well as educating them in a curriculum. </p>

<p>Some people in America like the male icon of John Wayne. Some people wish there were more Tom Hanks. That is just my observation, and I believe that those kinds of cultural themes underpin many discussions of education and gender issues beyond education.</p>

<p>I am sure John Wayne was a nice, well-behaved boy. And Tom Hanks too. Or else they weren’t:). But I do have a particular interest in cultural archetypes that surfaces more frequently as I get older and live longer and see more things that form repeating patterns.</p>

48

<p>One of the benefits I see at my sons’ all-male high school is a wide acceptance that the school has both the “Tom Hanks” kids and the “John Wayne” kids. When you are only dealing with one gender, I think there is potential for greater acceptance of the wide variety within that gender. One can’t say, “Well, that’s just boys being boys” or “That’s just the way girls are.” I see a deeper understanding of the individual, because they are all of one gender.</p>

<p>My kids are quiet and gentle, just like my husband. I think they’d be lost in a different environment. In fact, their school has an award winning arts department – there are no girls to dominate that arena.</p>

49

<p>I think many on this thread have a biased view of cooperation - and tend to view it from a feminine perspective. Men cooperate - perhaps their cooperation just “looks different”. </p>

<p>Males play “pick-up” sports games - no coach, no one in charge. Males form bands - no director/conductor, etc. </p>

<p>Don’t forget the old standard joke: If you have 9 guys getting ready to play basketball, they’ll let the “loser” join in to make the numbers work. Girls, generally speaking, would rather quit playing than allow someone they don’t like on the team.</p>

50

<p>I attended an all-girls school for one year, 6th grade, in London. I loved it.</p>

<p>Um, in my experience, girls go out of their way to let others play if their involvement will enrich the game. But I am talking those endless games of pretend, “OK. I’m 17 and my name is Julia. I have long brown hair and a motorcycle and I live in Santa Barbara. You can be Elizabeth.” “No, I’m Amanda and I have long blond hair and I am a detective…”</p>

51

<p>Alumother:

</p>

<p>Your discussion, and presumptions, about teaching cooperation are interesting - but not necessarily in accordance with what I’ve seen. Of course, I’m one of the most liberal people on this board, :slight_smile: but, actually, I think school should be mostly about teaching subject matter – math, science, history etc. </p>

<p>Now, my kids attend(ed) a Jesuit school - would that be classified as conservative or liberal? Well, that’s not entirely clear. While some priests and kids are down picketing the local doctor’s office that provides abortions, they will send out a questionnaire to parents asking, for instance, if our sons being taught that to question the government is the duty of every citizen. </p>

<p>The main mission of the school is to graduate “Men for Others.” It is the theme repeated in nearly everything they do, from service projects to daily expectations of behavior to each other. <cooperative.></cooperative.></p>

<p>While the school is undeniably outcome based (no fluff - no projects - no feel good curriculum - no tiptoeing around these kids) they take very seriously the acceptance of different views and encourage the boys to speak their views. (And believe me I know, as my one son has inherited the liberal activist genes and, not surprisingly, the student body comes from predominantly Republican/Conservative families.)</p>

<p>Additionally, it appears to me that this school is WAY less competitive in many respects than other schools I hear about on here. There is no valedictorian, no ranking, no bragging about college entries, very limited awards ceremonies (with no parents invited). The only senior individually acknowledged during graduation is one kid who is voted by his classmates as, I don’t know, the embodiment of Jesuit philosophy who has taken a real leadership position in his class and all-around great kid. (The award has a name which I’ve forgotten.)</p>

<p>Is this school perfect? NO! Are all the boys angels? NO! NO! But they generally produce kids that really feel they are part of a family, who feel bonds with each other even if they weren’t best friends, who have some understanding of social justice issues and empathy for the poor, and on top of all that, are well educated!</p>

<p>Conservative or liberal? The lines blur…</p>

52

<p>The thing that bothers me in all of this is that, in order to be successful, the gender-specific classes must actually be set up to speak to the different needs of the different genders. In my D’s public middle school, there was a team of teachers that had sections of boys only & sections of girls only. There was no difference in how the work was presented to the different sections — they were simply separated. The thought was that they just needed to be apart at that age in order to learn more effectively. I moved my S before middle school because I felt that the school’s culture was one of low expectations for boys. I did not see the boys only class as doing anything to address that problem.</p>

<p>I now guest teach in the public high school. They have a teacher who does single-sex classes. She teaches with a special education co-teacher. I have subbed for the special ed teacher, so I have seen the gen ed teacher in action. Unfortunately, I still see the class as just separating boys from girls … no difference in the actual teaching style … just differences in how the classes behave. The boys class is rude, crude, & disruptive (why do so many people think boys are incapable of civilized behavior?), and the girls class spends an inordinate amount of time discussing boy problems. The lessons were the same for both classes.</p>

<p>I definitely think single-sex classrooms can work well. I just wish I had more faith in the ability of some educators to understand WHY and HOW they work best!!</p>

53

<p>I think there is a difference between single sex classrooms and single sex schools.</p>

54

<p>

</p>

<p>Huh? I come from a long line of liberal democrats and consider collaboration to be the cornerstone of my professional life. Both of my boys were raised as feminists by a man and a woman who hold egalitariansim dear to their hearts. Doesn’t change my opinion of the over-emphasis on ‘discussion’ in suburban American primary and secondary schools. Much of it is useless drivel. In my opinion. Nonwithstanding Tom Hanks or John Wayne.</p>

<p>I cannot remember where I saw this research but boys are statistically more cooperative than girls. If their play is disrupted by inter-personal disagreement, boys quickly work to find a resolution in order to preserve The Game–which includes The Pack playing The Game. The Game and The Pack are the priority to boys. Most primary school teachers will confirm this behavior.</p>

<p>If their play is disrupted by inter-personal disagreement, girls often leave The Game altogether. They find it difficult to function without the complete resolution of inter-personal conflict. The status of the inter-personal relationship is the priority for the girl–not The Game and not The Pack. Girls spend far more time manipulating and examining those inter-personal relationships.</p>

55

<p>Good. By separating out the politics we get clearer. Now if people could identify themselves as mothers/fathers with only boys or mothers/fathers with girl(s) and boy(s) or mothers/fathers with only girls, then I think we may have the clearest discussion yet on this board about this topic.</p>

<p>BTW, as I said, I loved my all-girls school. And my kids went to a school so hands-on that by the end of the day they were always covered in mud…</p>

56

<p>I’m a mother with a girl and a boy – and while I see the differences, I am frustrated by the girl vs. boy dichotomy, as I think what is far more important is recognition and accommodation of differing learning styles. My son has a lot of typical boy behaviors, but he also was non-athletic, a little nerdy, and somewhat of a loner as a kid – so all of this talk of Packs and Games doesn’t really ring true… the only “Game” he really enjoyed involved squabbling over whose turn it was with the controller for the console. Meanwhile, my girl who has all of the standard feminine strengths for language and definitely is big on the idea of resolving and enhancing interpersonal relationships also is was extremely physically active as a child – (the first grade teacher recommended against a grade skip despite the fact that she was reading at 5th grade level because she was too “squirmy”) – and even at age 6 was quite devoted to the idea of taking things on for the sake of the “team” (she detested her tap teacher, but wanted to stick out the year with the class because she didn’t want to let down the group for their competition routine). </p>

<p>So, lets move away from the stereotypes. I’m not sure where my daughter’s gay boyfriends fit anyway – they used to come over to the house and do girly things with my d., lots of giggling and playing with clothes and makeup - though I have no clue as to how they functioned in the classroom. But the point is… a sex segregated education based on broad assumptions about how boys learn and what they like vs. how girls learn and what they like isn’t going to work for everyone.</p>

<p>My kids attended schools that were more flexible all the way through. They went to a touchy-feely, constructivist K-8 school with a big emphasis on hands-on activities, lots of cross-grade activities & field trips. It was a public alternative school that required parent participation, hence meeting the very important need identified by paying3tuitions for classroom aides – there was a parent aide in all the lower grade classrooms every day of the week, usually from 8 am to noon. Every parent had to contribute about 75 hours per year per kid, and we had a system whereby parents who couldn’t give time would pay into a fund that we used to hire regularly assigned aides for the teachers. Upper grades had aides, too – but they weren’t needed for as many hours. </p>

<p>For high school my son went to another public alternative, a member of the “Coalition of Essential Schools” - <a href=“http://www.essentialschools.org/pub/ces_docs/about/phil/10cps/10cps.html[/url]”>http://www.essentialschools.org/pub/ces_docs/about/phil/10cps/10cps.html&lt;/a&gt; - which also relied heavily on project-based and integrated learning. My d. went to an arts high school with no particular educational philosophy, but an overall emphasis on the arts that pretty much favored a creative and flexible approach all around. </p>

<p>These were all public schools; all had funding limitations; and none of the schools were perfect. But it is very possible to create an educational environment that respects and supports multiple personalities and learning styles, and I think that overall it can enhance everyone’s experience to have a combination of approaches rather than trying to aim for a sex or style segregated environments. </p>

<p>Example: when my d. was in 7th grade she was working with a group doing a project reporting on East African history --there were 3 girls, 1 boy and she was frustrated because they had all divided up the reading and writing assignments, and the girls were all doing their part… but the boy hadn’t done his, because he hated to read and write. I asked what the boy did like to do – well, he liked art, and he liked music, and he really, really liked to cook. So I suggested that perhaps the boy should be put in charge of researching African art, music, and/or food – and in preparing visual, auditory, or gustatory elements of their class presentation. Well – that idea worked really well, and I think the boy became the most enthusiastic and productive contributor to the group. Their class presentation was very well received.</p>

<p>It really never occurred to me that it was a boy vs. girl thing – to me it was a matter of focusing in on the individual talents and interests. The main difference between males & females may be one of behavior, not learning – that is, my son was much more likely to act out and create a disturbance when bored or disengaged – my d. could be equally disengaged, but perhaps it was not as apparent to the teachers that she was “off task”. So my boy child would raise a ruckus or say something impertinent and be sent to sit out in the hallway (a clear victory for him); my d. sat quietly in the classroom and amassed a growing collection of paper dolls that she would create while not paying attention to whatever it was the class was supposed to be doing.</p>

57

<p>Personally, I do not see a lot of stereotyping on this thread. I see a lot of reporting of experience as to what does and does not engage & maintain interest on the part of those who have parented sons. I don’t see universal claims being made, but I do see trends reported – similar to trends that I, a teacher, observe daily in classrooms.</p>

<p>It’s true that more than one topic is at issue: behavior/overt activity on the one hand; degree of intellectual involvement on the other. However, the point is, that overall the format of the school day is much more problematic for boys in terms of sustaining interest & encouraging performance. A versatile teacher will meet the learning styles of both genders & several learner types, but only if allowed, as well. There can be a surprising amount of rigidity when it comes to school (administrative) priorities, rendering useless the applied learning of the individual teacher. It can be just as troubling for (even all) students to suffer from an excessively fragmented day, as it can for active boys and kinesthetic learners of both genders to maintain for 90-minute desk periods and more. Because even primary age students are now often “departmentalized,” with many teacher/subject changes out of homeroom & with inconsistent weekly schedules, these decisions are often made on a whole-school basis. (The third topic being, Is the format developmentally appropriate? Often, no – as should be not surprising in a <em>K=8</em> school, with undifferentiated scheduling priorities.) </p>

<p>(I know no one is attacking teachers; I’m really just commiserating here, & explaining why, & apologizing for why, these struggles continue.)</p>

<p>Just trying to keep it back on-topic with the thread title, though, no question that historically there has been a lot less interest shown in what does not bore boys (especially), and what content, manner, approach excites them. Those of us who have taught core subjects to boys in the outdoors have seen a gigantic transformation when the setting is changed, and when the approach changes. None of the girls I have taught, even the most active ones, have needed quite the degree of control, freedom, independence & flexibility of the learning environment that boys have, including the physically quieter boys. It’s as much a function of psyche as of physiology.</p>

<p>Over the years, involved with both site schools & homeschools, I have seen the interest in homeschooling lopsidedly originating from boys and boys’ parents (because of the factor of setting & format control), although female siblings mostly do not have problems accommodating to a family decision. (Females do, however, show much less comfort than boys do, when studying core subjects in the out of doors.)</p>

<p>Even when I teach art, I often approach the subject differently in the classroom, depending on gender. I notice that when I emphasize risk & experimentation, this resonates more with the boys.</p>

58

<p>

<a href=“http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-3920(196809)39%3A3<755%3AGINSB>2.0.CO%3B2-V#abstract[/url]”>http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-3920(196809)39%3A3<755%3AGINSB>2.0.CO%3B2-V#abstract&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>There are those who gather these data points and I will try to find that research sited above. Fair enough, each kid has his or her individual learning style. Can we make observations based on our experience and readings? this is a forum of single data points, right?</p>

<p>We set out to place our boys in the most active learning environment we could find for primary school–and we found nirvana. We didn’t set out to place the boys in all-boy tutorial system high school–it just turned out that way when we moved overseas. And whaddya know–we liked that system better than the Harkness system for our fairly-standard-issue boys. And we were a family that visited Exeter because it initially sounded like the coolest high school learning–ever. We started the high school journey with a concept --which was radically adjusted by the time we finished with the high school journey. Trial and error. Live and learn.</p>

<p>Rationally I should like the discussion business, but in practice, my boys were less than enthused. I only discovered they were less than enthused when the traditonal tutorial opened up so many more intellectual avenues. a purely accidental disccovery.</p>

<p>FWIW, I was a semi-non-traditional female student. Spent a large part of primary school in the hall–with the desk. Penalized for reading my own material. Bored senseless in a traditional setting is my recollection. I am focused on the Game (the building) and collaborating with the Pack (the engineers and builders)–but I over-analyze the relationships too–just not in front of the rest of the pack if I can help myself. ;)</p>

<p>The OP suggested there were methods to improve boys’ interests. I made suggestions based on my parental experience–not my gender or my politics.</p>

59

<p>

<a href=“http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/11/72/ea.pdf[/url]”>ERIC - Page Not Found 404;

<p>

</p>

<p>

<a href=“http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep043303462.pdf[/url]”>http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep043303462.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Sorry for the double post. Too slow.</p>

60

<p>

I just can’t help pointing out that you are the one who brought politics into the discussion. So I’m happy you are pleased to see it go.</p>

<p>I did answer earlier that I have two boys. I don’t really see the relevance to the discussion about whether or not the posters have a child of only one gender or of each gender. Friends of mine with both, but who have kids in single gender schools, feel the same way that I do.</p>

<p>I think that parents who have had kids in single gender schools see things differently from parents who have only had schools in coed schools.</p>