<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>I actually think high school boys learn better in a more traditional way - just get-the-work-done kind of a thing. (Again, proving I’m no pedagogical expert…) Skip the projects, the “interdisciplinary” crap, the fluff and stuff. Hmmm – sort of like school in the 50s and 60s.</p>
<p>Also, I suspect what kids are doing outside of school has been altered severely since the 50s and 60s. Not much after-school burning off of energy for many of these kids. Not much get out on the sandlot and work out their dominance issues or practice their leadership/peacemaking/delegating skills.</p>
<p>Here’s a show I once watched that made me feel so bad!!!</p>
<p>It was about a first grade class that was learning to write stories. I believe this was a PBS show supposedly about kids and violence. (My memory is a little fuzzy of that.) The kids would dictate a story and someone would write it down and then they would read it to the group of kids. The kids were then supposed to critique it.</p>
<p>The boys liked their stories full of weapons and gore. One particular boy’s story that I recall had the character killed at the end. Without fail, the girls stories were “nice” stories and had good resolutions at the end.</p>
<p>When they were filming the class I was struck by how disapproving everyone - the teacher and the girls - were of the boys’ stories. They literally shut those boys right down. “Inappropriate topics” and all that. </p>
<p>The girls begged the boy to not have the character die. When the teacher insisted the boy re-write his ending he was unable to say even ONE word out loud. He was instantly bored and turned off of the whole project.</p>
<p>I have no idea what pedagogical moment this proves or disproves - all I know is I saw boys that were sidelined by what they thought was “interesting.” (And as a mom of course I hate that violent stuff too!)</p>
<p>But it was a teaching moment of sorts for me. :(</p>
<p>NCLB was accomplished by GWB “reaching across the aisle” to Teddy Kennedy to establish how committed he was to bipartisanship early in his presidency. Some big business conservatives joined his enthusiasm for reasons of their own. However, there are both liberals and conservatives who strongly object to the concept of NCLB, for different reasons.</p>
<p>I don’t think that conyat’s view of the evils of neocons in education equates to “extra rigidity, more time in seats, etc.” that is worse for boys. Both sides can’t be true.</p>
<p>I wasn’t talking about Conyat’s post; my point about NCLB/ridigity/boys was pretty self explanatory…I thought (where do I find the little scratchy head confused icon?)…</p>
<p>Apparently neither sjmom nor HH actually paid enough attention to my post to realise that my position is that SCHOOL hasn’t changed. Boys are affected OUTSIDE of the classroom by these hostile attitudes toward women and empiricism–it’s coming from the larger culture and from home training. </p>
<p>Let’s see, jumping to conclusions about someone’s post without even bothering to find out what it said…what does that sound like? </p>
<p>Ding, ding. If you guessed typical neocon behavior, you’re right!</p>
<p>At least when WashDad made a post that proved my point, he did it as a joke. :)</p>
<p>Just another off-the-wall opinion on your part. And, of course, anyone who disagrees with you is called the worst thing you can imagine – a neocon. By the way, how many boys have you raised? Those of us who have sons actually speak from experience. My kids are NOT affected by your perceived “hostile attitudes toward women.” It wouldn’t occur to them to treat women disrespectfully, either at home or at school.</p>
<p>Are you seriously denying that there is misogyny in our society? I can give you many, many quotes from Robertson, etal.</p>
<p>There’s even a poster on this board who alleges that rape prevention education is a plot by “extremist lesbians”. There’s another who insists that the last place a woman being stalked should ask for help is the battered women’s shelter, because they’ll have some sinister agenda of their own that will place her in worse danger.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>sjmom, you did what necoons do, you made up something without bothering to get real information that was easily obtainable, and it became more compelling to you than reality. </p>
<p>This is exactly what the neocons are famous for. If you don’t want to be classified with the neocons, why embrace their behavior?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Two actually. Young adolescents with juvenile records for drugs and violence who landed on my door when their mother, a relative by marriage, could no longer handle them, and I was in my mid-20s. Both are doing fine now, thanks for asking.</p>
<p>Alumother, I apologize to you. I (foolishly) thought that it was possible to discuss issues about raising boys in modern American society without it becoming a political mud fest. Clearly, you were right and I was wrong. Some things never change.</p>
<p>Again, this is exactly the opposite of what I posted. My point was about the damaging effects of the neocons OUTSIDE the classroom. I never said or even implied that there are neocons teaching. </p>
<p>Sjmom twisted my post 180 degrees to misrepresent and smear me…and now she wants to complain about things being political…where’s Alanis Morisette when you need her?</p>
<p>weenie says:
“I actually think high school boys learn better in a more traditional way - just get-the-work-done kind of a thing. (Again, proving I’m no pedagogical expert…) Skip the projects, the “interdisciplinary” crap, the fluff and stuff. Hmmm – sort of like school in the 50s and 60s.”</p>
<p>I agree with the above. Of course, my only basis for agreement is observation. I have certainly heard much grumbling about silly projects! There are definitely cool ways to do projects that really seem to draw kids in … but I have noticed that these interest BOTH boys and girls.</p>
<p>I spoke with my 15 year old son about this thread today. He says that he learns best in the traditional style of teaching … the one supposedly “for girls.” He was kind of offended that this might make him seem “girly.” He says to tell everyone that he “kicks everyone’s butts” (his words!) in a traditional kind of school, and he would HATE to be taught in the environment the experts say he needs.</p>
<p>Yes, there are boys who need something different … and there are GIRLS who need that same “something different” … and there are boys who need what supposedly girls need … and it all boils down to this: different strokes for different folks! I suspect the most successful programs use a blend of different approaches in order to address different learners. Easier said than done, of course. :)</p>
<p>The word traditional is being bandied about without proper definition.</p>
<p>Traditional school, modelled on the English boarding schools and profoundly influenced by Thomas Arnold, involves a highly structured teaching course in a clearly disciplined, hierarchical classroom. Lecturing and discussion is kept to a minimum --and the students (originally boys) are allowed to work on their assignments, in silence, during class. Bright boys are able to finish most assignments during the school day. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Post 1960s American classrooms have used variations of the Harkness teaching method, a method which encourages discussion and continuous lecturing and discourages quiet work periods.
<p>In my view, the post 60s, Harkness discussion classroom does not work well for boys. Many boys do better in the traditional English-type classroom–probably because it was designed, over a period of 600 years, to suit their temperaments .</p>
<p>My 11 year old’s essay for his Harkness private high school? “What three things would you bring with you if you knew you would visit another planet?”</p>
<p>His answer: “Guns, knives and money.” </p>
<p>NOT the proper Harkness answer. <em>cough</em></p>
<p>that should have told me he wasn’t going to enjoy the Harkness classroom, LOL. I was amazed he got in, frankly.</p>
</p>