Interesting. I was struck by how much blame was put on 1) the school system and 2) the differential timing of puberty, when differences in ability predate both of these factors. There was only one brief sentence mentioning how early the differences are apparent (“The differences open up early. Girls are 14 percentage points more likely than boys to be ‘school ready’ at age 5” ) but then no followup regarding why that could possibly be.
3 Likes
“School ready”. Part of the problem is schooling structure. Long hours sitting quietly indoors favors females.
5 Likes
For reference, I’m going to quote a bit more about the school ready gap between the sexes, as it provides more context about the significance of the 14 points.
Girls are 14 percentage points more likely than boys to be ‘school ready’ at age five, for example, controlling for parental characteristics. This is a much bigger gap than the one between rich and poor children, or black and white children, or between those who attend pre-school and those who do not.
My interpretation of the reading is that from the start of school, girls’ brains are more developed than boys’ AND that the way our educational system is set up is more beneficial for those who can sit for an extended time and have a longer attention span.
The key point is that the relationship between chronological age and developmental age is very different for girls and boys. From a neuro-scientific perspective, the education system is tilted in favour of girls. It hardly needs saying that this was not the intention. After all, it was mostly men who created the education system; there is no century-old feminist conspiracy to disadvantage the boys. The gender bias in the education system was harder to see when girls were discouraged from pursuing higher education or careers and steered toward domestic roles instead. Now that the women’s movement has opened up these opportunities to girls and women, their natural advantages have become more apparent with every passing year.
So, there are those that recommend redshirting boys until their brains develop more. There’s also been the recommendation to have more male teachers. And then there’s the idea of trying to revamp our ideas of what teaching and learning needs to look like, particularly with respect to increasing opportunities for kinesthetic engagement and hands-on activities. This last point I think would probably be beneficial to students of all genders, as the females in alternative schools or that have had less academic success frequently have learning styles that would be better complemented by these types of activities.
1 Like
Kindergarten readiness tests evaluate more than academics. In Ohio our K-screening includes assessment of all the following to determine “K-Ready”: social emotional development, mathematics, language and literacy (expressive and receptive), physical well-being and motor development (fine motor and gross motor).
1 Like
What about when the boys reach 19 and are way bored?
1 Like
I think people expect more of girls from the beginning.
I also recall reading somewhere that all-boys schools do not spend less time sitting and focusing than co-ed schools but I can’t remember where. It would be interesting to have more information about different types of education and boys’ achievement in those different settings. My sense is that no matter what kind of setting you have, unless they are actively discriminated against, girls will out-achieve boys overall. That is to say, I don’t think the schools themselves are responsible for any struggle that males under 35 might be having.
I remember learning years ago when I was studying school psychology, that on most traits (like intelligence, height, persistence, etc.) humans tend to fall on a bell curve – there’s a big bunch around what we call the norm (because that’s where most people fall) then it tapers off in both directions. And one sex difference is that the bell curve for most attributes for females is more condensed – normal is higher, there are fewer at the ends, than for males, where the central point is lower and there are more individuals toward the ends. As a result you get those super high-scoring males, but you also have more males who are very low-scoring. And so, if you implement interventions directed at the norm, you will capture more females. I often wonder if that isn’t part of what we see. Not that males at the norm aren’t responding to the kind of education that is provided, but that there are fewer males in that group. And we continue to see men dominating the top echelons of fields because there are relatively more of them at the tippy top.
But I could be wrong.
2 Likes
These are possible factors for female college enrollment/success that I’ve thought about (which may or may not be valid)….
READING - Although our son learned to read a bit slower than our daughter, both became prolific readers. But by observation in other families, it seems like girls more likely to do reading on their own, and that can be helpful prep for high school and college.
CLASSROOM DYNAMICS - Many of the ADHD (and ADHD-ish) energetic students seem to be boys. It may be harder for them to get traction on their lessons?
JOB PROSPECTS - It’s easier for males to find good paying fields that don’t require a college degree.
VIDEO GAME DISTRACTIONS - I know of a few gamer guys who flunked out of college with this factor. I’m not saying that video game addiction caused the failure. Just that when the going got tough, it was easy for them to surrender to the distraction and spiral into academic failure. (Says this lady who gets distracted from home chores by the far more interesting discussions on CC and FB).
1 Like
I haven’t kept up with this thread, but I listened to something today that make me think of it. Ds2 has mentioned Scott Galloway to me, but this is probably the first time I listened to him.
I do think males under 35 are at big disadvantage and video games is big factor. Just out of curiosity do you see males in this age group actually reading books? Not newspapers but books?
My son reads a real book every day.
4 Likes
Yes, I think that’s the most common interpretation–that the gap in school readiness is due to innate differences in brain development in males vs females. But I personally favor differences in environment and expectations, just as do when seeing gaps in readiness for children of different incomes or different racial groups (i.e. I side with Flynn not Jensen.) Because I see a LOT of differences in expectations in many families for their sons vs daughters. “Boys will be boys” is a phrase that is usually said with a big dose of pride and very little chagrin.
2 Likes
In general, it seemed that boy classmates were not as interested in reading as girls. But my little guy used to sneak books at night, reading with his night light. I’d scold him. Then I’d come out and say to my husband, “yay… he’s reading”.
4 Likes
My S was reading before preschool — D wasn’t until she was in 1st it 2nd grade. Both have always loved reading!
1 Like
I went to an all-boys school (albeit one that was highly selective) and there wasn’t less time spent sitting in total (although lessons were much shorter than in my kids high school, with six 50 minutes lessons per day, not the block schedule that is common today, so you moved around a lot) but the classroom behavior was quite different. For a start the teaching style was geared towards boys’ desire to be competitive with one another and outshine each other. Lots of questions based on quick recall of facts, quotations, calculations, etc with little attention given to allowing everyone to have their say or encouraging the quieter kids to speak up. And difficult exams and tests with many prizes for achievement (and the best scores announced to the class). Recall the chess article I mentioned earlier in the thread:
“men are simply more competitive—that is, they have a stronger motivation not just to compete, but to win, in formal physical and non-physical competitions of all kinds”
6 Likes
Isn’t there a lot of stereotyping going on here? “Boys don’t like to read” “Boys have a shorter attention span” “Boys are more competitive”. Does this translate to “girls like to read, girls have a long attention span, girls are not competitive” ?
In classrooms (teachers and support staff) , in homes (parents, sibs, relatives, friends)…can “we” focus on just seeing individuals and not separating genders?
19 Likes
But many decisions in a classroom affect the whole class, they aren’t individualized. Take the block schedule for example. I suspect that was created for the benefit of teachers, but if it’s more suited to girls’ learning style on average, then it will be worse for boys on average, even if some boys do ok with it.
3 Likes
I don’t agree with this generalization. I think it’s too simplistic.
I believe many girls/women are just as competitive as boys/men in many ways…in both physical and non-physical endeavors. Consider the possibility that due to cultural norms and expectations, females have had to historically conform in order to be considered “successful”.
I believe that’s part of the reason we see some males under 35 struggling. Women have been slowly redefining what “success” is for themselves as individuals.
@Twoin18 Now here’s my personal background. I attended a selective high school in Chicago…Lane Tech. It had been a city-wide all boys high school up until about 5 years before I attended.
Like most who are striving for equal opportunity and inclusion the girls had to persevere through some assumptions and harassment.
I took 2 yrs of drafting and 2 yrs of “shop” as part of my graduation requirements. They aren’t classes I was keen on taking before I took them, but I actually enjoyed them and learned a lot. And just an FYI the year I graduated the valedictorian was a girl.
Anyway my point is that since “the only constant in life is change” adaptation is the key to success. In my opinion individuals should determine their own goals and not be subject to gender-based expectations.
7 Likes
I understand this and it is correct. But it’s the society blinders we put on that is concerning. Slotting genders into categories.
So if we accept this as true - that a classroom setting MAY need to rely on “averages” then it becomes even more critical that at home where the “average” family may have 1-4 kids, should indeed look more at individual learning styles and personalities - rather than those slotted gender categories.
School habits are so important. But home habits and guidance even more important.
5 Likes
Which is fine on CC where there’s a bunch of highly educated, highly motivated elite parents who are obsessed with doing the best for their kids (who are in most cases also high achieving). It’s not representative of society as a whole. The “males under 35” who are “struggling” are by and large not our kids.
6 Likes
In my opinion that is another stereotype. That only educated parents or highly motivated parents want/do the best for their kids. Nearly all parents want their kids to be successful. To think of their toddler as smart. To see them grow up and be worthy.
Non-CC like parents may need more tools in their toolbox to provide the nurturing, skills and motivation to be their child’s first teacher and biggest cheerleader right from birth. In my opinion we fail by relying on programs and others outside the home to get kids where they want to be. Instead of empowering parents from the start, we set up programs to take that task off their plate because we think they are not capable.
Of course there are some not capable, not motivated.
The CC crowd may be an exception, but that doesn’t mean they are the only ones who can be “exceptional”.
“Takes off professional hat of working with “disadvantaged” families for 40+ years”
13 Likes