<p>In DS’s coed int’l school, there were no fatherless families. Nearly all the kids where there because of father’s foreign job posting. There were scores of different nationalities and no low SES families.</p>
<p>Still the girls consistently out-performed the boys. The performance gap was not an absent-father problem, or a SES problem, or even an American problem.</p>
<p>Not catering to a group’s academic needs isn’t quite the same as actively discouraging (and in older cases, deliberately preventing) another group from participating in academics.</p>
<p>While I agree that different teaching measures could (and should) be used for boys, I fail to see how anything about the current system is “deliberate.” Not everything is a conspiracy.</p>
<p>I’m surprised that no one has mentioned the data on the difference in ADHD diagnoses between male and female students (unless I missed it). As my son went through elementary and middle school it seemed like more than half of his buddies were taking meds for ADHD. I came to the conclusion that what the doctors were really doing in many cases was diagnosing the Y chromosome. A wildly disproportionate number of males exhibit a constellation of behaviors that gets labeled as ADHD (up to three times the number of females in some studies). I have no idea if ADHD is “real,” but it is clear that males exhibit behaviors that get labeled as ADHD at a much higher rate than do females. It is also clear that these behaviors make it more difficult to learn in traditional classrooms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see where boys are being “deliberately handicapped”. They are currently being admitted to colleges with lower statistics than girls in many cases (so getting a boost). The current education system is much as it has been for the past 50 years in terms of how classrooms are run, what subjects students study, etc. So I don’t see any “deliberate handicapping” going on. I don’t dispute that there is an issue and that it is a serious one. But I don’t think it is deliberate on anyone’s part. Every teacher and parent want to see their male students/sons succeed. Young women would like to have a bigger pool of men with a good education and career potential to marry. Boys want to have career success as well.</p>
<p>^^^^ I have not seen the statistics demonstrating that high SES girls outperform high SES boys. Can you provide me with some data to clear up my misconception?</p>
<p>Even if it were true that high SES girls outperform high SES boys, one interpretation of that data would be that schools have always favored those who are able to sit quietly for long periods of time, and that more girls than boys always did fit that description, but in the past girls were not able to use that advantage to the extent possible today.</p>
<p>I don’t know if schools are any more or less “feminine” than they were 40 years ago. I know what I observe today. I have a boy and a girl. Both had the same teacher in first grade. I was in the class volunteering when I saw my daughter get over-the-top accolades for her drawing, which included “all the colors of the rainbow”. In fact, the drawings which were rewarded with a trip to the treasure box (her reward system) were all girls’ drawings and very colorful. The boys tended to draw using blue, black, brown, grey. They drew cars, and rocket ships, and planets. The message starts very early in life - at 5 and 6 years old. </p>
<p>Incidentally, 16 year old daughter today has no artistic ability. 19 year old son is naturally artistic.</p>
<p>We saw this all the way through school, until the later years in high school. What is priviledged in our school were the more typical qualities you would see in a girl. Science projects which required the student to come up with a song and dance about the science of sound. Really? This is how we determine mastery of a science subject. Surprise surprise, daughter loved doing a little song and dance for the class (she took dance lessons after all), son hated the project. Even though he earned a 100 in the test, he flunked this portion because he refused to sing his poem about sound. It turns out he sings in a somewhat monotone voice - ha ha! He was singing, you just wouldn’t recognize it as singing. I am all for accomodating different learning styles and engaging kids in different ways. But punishing the boys because they don’t want to dance in front of the class sends a bad message. By this point in his schooling, he was so disengaged, it was hard to bring him back. </p>
<p>I am glad my daughter will have so many opportunites that maybe weren’t available to young women many years ago. I think it’s easy to dismiss the boys as lazy and disengaged. Yes, they might be. But, my son also works his tail off when it is something he cares about and he understands the point of the work. My daughter can be bored and undertand the work is busy-work, but will still do a bang up job. This is a big difference. Boys have a harder time “sucking it up”. Should they suck it up? I don’t know. We all have to do things in life we don’t enjoy. Maybe there is too much of it in school for the boys. </p>
<p>There are many books discussing the topic of girls vs boys and their learning styles. Their brains are different, they are wired differently, they see the world differently. And yes, 18 year old girls are infinitely more mature than their male counterparts. </p>
<p>And I do agree with the idea that boys can be overly confident regarding what they can do without a college degree.</p>
<p>I actually consider our current system to be rather lazy. I don’t think that it serves boys or girls as well as it could, inspite of MDs and other’s points of getting more students college ready than ever. Just because it serves some girls better than boys does not make it a system that is working “better” for girls than others would.</p>
<p>I think it is up to the men to find what needs to be done for the guys, now, though. As women, 20 years ago, when the studies came out showing that girls weren’t getting the educational opportunities or attention they needed, we got on it. </p>
<p>If the men want their sons to get a better education, they should get “on it.”</p>
<p>As a male who is likely to be the first male valedictorian my school has had, I think I can offer a unique perspective. Whether or not a student succeeds and motivates himself depends greatly upon individual circumstances. However, there is no denying the overall trend in the current education paradigm. One theory is that parents tend to shelter girls more from the social aspects of their lives for fear of “corruption”. I’m not saying this is legitimate, it just happens. And in the past few decades, as young women have been provided with more opportunities, they turn to academics to fill up the time that they are sheltered, as opposed to the times of the past where young women, when kept in the house, were expected to learn domestics. This theory states that the trend is a result in a shift in the status of females in society, and does not say anything about a shift in the position of males. </p>
<p>While the theory mentioned above could be the sole factor contributing to the trend, it is likely much more multifaceted. I also believe that, in general, the advent of social media has warped the priorities of males more than it has done with females. Guys (it seems to me) have always been much more communal in their teenage years, with their locus of identity tending to be external (more so than their female peers). This is, in part, due to the sheltering of females mentioned above. Social media has compounded the social priorities of young men and lessened the academic priorities. </p>
<p>This is just my two cents.</p>
<p>And people who are defending their sons or males in general, and are saying that the system is stacked against males need to get over themselves. Not once have I felt that the system is stacked against me or any of my male peers. The difference between being academically successful and not performing well in school is one of motivation. Stop making excuses for laziness. It is insulting to those who actually work very hard</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t have statistics, but have seen a large sample in evaluating students for the low income college preparation program I mentioned in an earlier post. Every year we could fill the entire class of about 100 kids with 80% girls IF we just took them in based on standardized test scores. We also see grades, teacher recommendations, information on their families/income/siblings/etc, and essays the kids have written. But if we went strictly on math and reading scores, we would take almost all girls from the applicant pool. That is not what happens – the final class is closer to a 50/50 split (no more than 55/45 girl/boy). I am saying this is not grades (which can be subjective if the teacher likes rainbows better than rockets). It is the math and reading scores on state tests.</p>
<p>Also… if I had a son (I have two daughters), I would not count on their dad to “get on it” to get them a better education. Just a sample of one, but I know if I wanted my kids to get their homework done, I was going to be the one keeping track of things and making sure the kids did what they were supposed to, got help if they were struggling, etc. If I had boys, I am sure I still would have been the one doing that. I am also the one who got the higher paying job so we could pay for private schools and a good college education. Would have done the same for any sons I had. It isn’t that their dad doesn’t value education (he has post-graduate degree from a top 10 university). But the parenting skills to help a kid be successful in school are not very evident.</p>
<p>I have to disagree with the “sheltering” theory. Believe me, I was “sheltered” (and so were all my female peers) in the 60s when we were growing up. Every second of our time was accounted for, and the activities we were allowed to pursue were limited (my parents thought the tennis team was an acceptable sport, but girls should not play any other sport, for example – I didn’t like tennis, so I didn’t play a sport). Thus giving me plenty of time to study. My brothers had much more freedom to pursue whatever they wanted to. I can’t imagine my parents would have said no to any high school extra curricular they wanted to pursue.</p>
<p>My daughters have participated in sports, quiz bowl, robotics, 4H, scouts, debate, speech, and various clubs at school. Their female friends do as well. They are hustling all the time with activities, and have no more time for studying than the boys around them. Females were far more sheltered, with far more free time to study (if they chose) 40 years ago than today. There are exceptions, of course, but I don’t think you can draw any generalization that girls today are more sheltered and therefore have more time to study.</p>
<p>I do think your point about computers is valid. I actually distinguish social media from gaming, though. I think a lot of boys waste a LOT of time on gaming. I also think they aren’t developing face-to-face social skills; those skills are important for academic (ask the prof for help) and job success. Boys are generally poorer at social skills to start with, and I think the computer revolution has actually reduced those skills. Maybe somewhat offset by the possibility of building job skills with computers, but still…</p>
<p>Congratulations amissy14. That is quite an accomplishment! A male student, even in the top 10, is a rare sighting in our school. Last year there was 1 male in the top 10, and his mother was on top of him all day everyday from kindergarten on. </p>
<p>It is interesting that when we moved my son to an all male middle school, he thrived. He wasn’t lazy, no one called him disorganized, and he handed in his homework. The level of work was much more challenging than what he was accustomed to, and yet he was very successful. We couldn’t keep him there for several reasons, though in retrospect we should have gotten through every obstacle presented to keep him there. Our (very serious) mistake.</p>
<p>amissy14</p>
<p>I really liked your perspective. Thank you!</p>
<p>And I agree with you on post #109 about the importance of motivation. If students are not motivated, they’ll drop out, regardless of their gendet.</p>
<p>Drop out rares for males are not higher than before, the difference has been in the improvement for females who are now allowed the same opportunities as males.</p>
<p>+1 for all-male middle schools!</p>
<p>I like single sex education, not only for boys but also for girls. </p>
<p>But I don’t think that is the only answer to reduce male dropout rates, which happen at all levels of education. Eventually they will go to a coed college and will have to deal with it.</p>
<p>intparent, you are probably aware that there are easily available statistics regarding male and female performance on the SAT, and that it is apparent that the great majority of the highest scorers are male.</p>
<p>Your experience with regard to low-SES students is consistent with what I had claimed. It is the low-SES males who perform so poorly.</p>
<p>salander - I agree that single sex education isn’t the panacea. And yes, they do eventually live in a co-ed world. It is possible that if a boy is more successful in school because of the single sex education, by the time they get to college, they are in a much better place (academically and otherwise). I guess one would have to clone a boy, track them, and see the difference :-)</p>
<p>I also agree that single sex education for girls can be just as effective.</p>
<p>I have to say that back when the fact that girls weren’t getting called on in class as often as boys, weren’t being encouraged to pursue leadership roles, etc… came to light a quarter of a decade ago, one of the biggest solutions offered was single sex education, particularly at the high school level.</p>
<p>I find it interesting that as boys face a situation in which they may no longer be being served by the education system, single sex education is being advocated, though at a younger age.</p>
<p>Either way, both of these ideas point to the fact that, possibly, girls and boys really do do better in separate classrooms. </p>
<p>I wonder, really, if we couldn’t have single sex academics in the public schools with co-ed extra curriculars and electives. Just a thought.</p>
<p>The private high school associated with the middle school my son went to had a great way of doing this. They had single sex education for certain classes, and co-ed for others. I think foreign language, and the arts were co-ed. I don’t know other specifics. But, it seemed like it provided the best of both worlds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or do a “twin” study. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The kids we see are much younger (testing from 4th & 5th grade is used to admit them to the program). They are indeed pretty much all low income SES; I have noticed then when we get an outlier applicant of either gender with higher test scores, they usually are from a home with higher income and one parent with at least some college. I just did a quick (not thorough) search and could find SAT breakdowns by income and by gender, but could not find them combined for the two. Would like to see what that looks like – although boys have slightly higher averages across the board on the SAT, does that hold for low income boys?</p>