HH – I remember all the hullabaloo over that study. I’ll look it up when I can. It was featured on a widely publicized PBS special & it involved observing classrooms & counting the number of times teachers gave favorable attention to boys. Now long after its airing, it was totally debunked. The observers were letting their personal biases creep into their determination of what attention would be deemed favorable. Proabably a poorly designed study without strict guidelines for categorizing observed behavior. Anyway, like much widely circulated theories that are proven wrong, the debunking never got much press. We still are seeing the aftermath. Look at the kids’ lit asigned in school. It’s been described as “Wonderwoman & the wimp” by Kate O’Bierne, and I’d agree. Every protagonist is a strong willed, courgeous girl who befriends a wimpy boy & opens his eyes to new possibilities. That gets quite tiresome to little boys if it’s a steady diet. They are turned off to reading.</p>
<p>Education has not changed much in over 50 years. Then as now, most of the day is spent with the teacher talking. It’s the way we’re raising boys that’s changed. Girls will not be too far behind.</p>
<p>I do think that there is far less acceptance of regular boy behavior, and teachers etc. think it needs to be medicated away. So, regular “bouncy” boys, (in the past, we would have just said, “Boys will be boys”) are now all dxed with ADD and on Ritalin or other stimulants.</p>
<p>That, and those awful state tests, are two of the biggest changes I have seen.</p>
<p>I seem to remember that boys were required to sit still in their seats for just as long in the 50’s and 60’s as they are now (perhaps even longer). They somehow managed to do it, if I remember correctly, with very little disruption. I’m not sure that the public school dropout rate for boys was any higher then than it is now, although I don’t know for sure.</p>
<p>Exactly! What’s changed is what boys are being taught outside the classroom about society’s expectations.</p>
<p>Used to be the teacher, male or female, was an authority figure. If you were in trouble at school, you were in trouble at home. Now many, many are teaching boys that females–who are still most of the teachers–have no legitimate authority over males past early adolescence. Worse yet, children internalize all the hostility they see directed toward women in careers and in positions of authority.</p>
<p>On top of that, you have the neoconservative movement, which teaches that for some individuals, rules and normal limits on behavior simply do not apply; they don’t so much as defy authority as they simply refuse to recognize that it has anything to do with them. Add to that the neocon’s attitude toward education, observation and research: they’re all useless! Anything a neocon gets a gut feelings about is the only correct answer, regardless of what the research findings are or the professional judgement of those with something as tacky as actual experience.</p>
<p>The devaluation of female authority and of education over intuition, have had an impact that would take at least 10 years to undo. (Typically, no education reform effort works until the original crop of students has passed out of the system). It began with the boys, but at the rate we’re going, we’ll soon be seeing headlines about why neither gender is succeeding.</p>
<p>I cannot believe it:). Hereshoping I agree with you. I believe this has to do with the current popular culture of sarcasm and rule-breaking. And I’m a Democrat!!!</p>
Given the power of the extremely Democratic-leaning teachers’ unions in education today, this is the most ludicrous comment I’ve read in a long time. Just bizarre.</p>
<p>It’s beginning to sound like McCarthyism to me. Or the Salem witch trials – oooohhh, look out!, there might be a neocon lurking in the classroom!!! Get out the garlic, quick! Sounds a little paranoid to me.</p>
<p>“I seem to remember that boys were required to sit still in their seats for just as long in the 50’s and 60’s as they are now (perhaps even longer).”</p>
<p>Adapting to male needs does not necessarily mean that they’re out of their seats or wandering around. In some cases it might include a physical accommodation, but not always or even mostly. The discussion (again, back to the <em>topic</em> of the thread) is about the cognitive arena. Motivation is an essential element of cognition. (We tend not to learn what we don’t care about.) Perception and context are other important elements. Manner of understanding is another important element. Students tend to retain & sustain the learning when all those elements support the interest of the learner. (Teachers, Know Thy Learners, that’s all.)</p>
<p>We can “require” any behavior of students. But do not confuse enforced behavior with effective teaching. There also seems to be some notion that respecting boys as boys equates with disruption, noise, or even chaos. More often, it’s quite the opposite.</p>
<p>Putting this all in perspective, along the lines of “I cried because I had no shoes until I saw a man with no feet.” – Here’s a piece that was in my inbox today from Catholic Relief Services about their efforts in a west African nation where barely half of the girls even attend primary schools:</p>
<p>Although the teacher unions are overwhelmingly supported by Democrats, current educational policy is overwhelmingly conservative, so let’s not be so quick to malign Conyat.</p>
<p>Some of the most insidious, as well as obvious, changes in public education, those that have to do with mandates, tests, funding, are the direct result of this adminsitration’s hand in educational policy. </p>
<p>Feel free to not malign conyat, allmusic. I maintain that post #106 is paranoid. The teachers in the classroom are not “neocons.” I’ve yet to meet a right-wing public school teacher, or even one who spends a lot of energy on politics. Most of the teachers I know are just trying to do an important job in difficult situations.</p>
<p>I knew it wouldn’t be long before this thread deteriorated into political mud slinging. I’m just waiting for the “What to wear to college graduation” thread to become political. Do Republicans dress better for graduations? Do the bald pates contribute to global warming? Stay tuned…</p>
<p>Oh, on that I agree completely SJ. I said policy makers are overwhelmingly conservative, not the teachers. And yes, they are struggling to do a very difficult job amidst increasing bureaocracy. I have heard such stories…sometimes I think these teachers are simply heroic for putting up with so much nonsense.</p>
<p>I vow not to get into this discussion, but I have to agree that you are misreading conyat’s post, sjmom. He is saying that current national policy is as described, and teachers are forced to deal with kids brought up in that culture. Not at all that the teachers are cultivating it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I am determined not to get burned in one of these threads again, but I do think that conyat’s post reads the opposite of what you characterized it as.</p>
<p>One thing I’ve seen change since the 50’s/60’s is less time for recess and PE. We used to walk to school, walk home for lunch, walk back, have recess and maybe PE, walk home and play running-around games in the neighborhood at night. Now kids are lucky to get a tiny recess period and may go months at a time without PE, take a bus to school and back and have no neighborhood to play in.</p>
<p>Another difference I’ve seen is that many math curricula are making math a more word-based subject, making it less accessible to some kids, possibly boys especially. I also wonder if many boys, especially younger ones, may need more parental support with homework. I know my son did until the last few years. He said just having me in the room helped him focus on his work better. But how many parents have the time for that?</p>
<p>I understood that the neocons were out to take over the world, but I had no clue they controlled American public education also. Thanks for the heads up, conyat. :eek:</p>
This is just one more example of blaming every social problem on “neocons.” Even the schools aren’t safe, according to some. How this comment has any relevance to the topic is beyond me. It just reminds me of a B movie from the 1950’s, where commie’s were everywhere, just like the boogie-man. </p>
<p>I would really enjoy a discussion about the merits of any topic without people resorting to tired generalizations and hyperbole. It seems to have become more and more difficult to have those discussions on CC. It’s almost Pavlovian – person x says something and another responds in a predictable way. Not every issue in the world can or should be viewed through the prism of political affiliation.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the foibles of public education, at least currently, <em>can</em> be “viewed through the prism of political affiliation”, because current policy is dictated by those with a certain political persuasion.</p>
<p>So, when we are talking about rigid rules and standards, those edicts have been passed from the policy makers, all conservative. When we are talking about teacher unions, the political talk goes to the other side of the aisle.</p>
<p>It isn’t an indictment, only a statement of fact. NCLB and these unfunded mandates have been put into policy during Bush 2’s term. The problems that have unfolded as a result can be blamed on those policy makers, not the unions, and not the teachers.</p>