Interesting article about boys in school

[mommylamb]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/upshot/a-link-between-fidgety-boys-and-a-sputtering-economy.html?hpw&rref&_r=1

I know some of this stuff has been hashed to death, but it strikes a cord in me as the mom of boys. DS1 does well in school, but I know that sitting for hours on end are not ideal for him (and fortunately, his teacher is awesome about mixing it up and I have no complaints at all this year). I think the article does a good job of acknowledging that sexism still exists, and impacts girls and learning, but that boys face a lot of challenges too. I think we've been making great strides towards encouraging more girls to go into STEM fields and take STEM classes, and I think the results will begin to show as the current generation of kids and teens grow into adulthood. But at the same time, I think the emphasis has really been on girls for a long time and that the needs of boys can often be neglected in as we as a society try to overcompensate for the challenges historically faced by girls. Before I had children, I never thought I would feel this way, and when I'm honest with myself I wonder if I were the mother of girls and heard someone say the things I think about this, would I dismiss that person as just a complainer and not take them seriously.

Anyway, I thought some of you might find it interesting.

[SnuggleBuggles]

Sorry that Idon't have time to read the article now but sounds like the conversation my mom and I had earlier. We were both bemoaning the lack of a boy based program like Girls on the Run. Boys need exercise, empowerment, self esteem, and a place to talk about things too.

[stinkyfeet]

Great article! I hope that schools start to make changes with all of the recent evidence that boys have different learning styles than girls.

[twotimesblue]

Thanks for the link. The feminization of education has been great for girls, but where does that leave our boys?

I posted earlier this week about the principal of a local elementary, who launched into a diatribe of thinly-veiled misandry when asked about the achievements of boys vs girls at her school. This was at one of the top-rated schools in the city!

I think society as a whole has become a lot more anti-male in recent times, and it is very troubling to me as a mother of two (wonderful) sons.

[div_0305]

Sorry that Idon't have time to read the article now but sounds like the conversation my mom and I had earlier. We were both bemoaning the lack of a boy based program like Girls on the Run. Boys need exercise, empowerment, self esteem, and a place to talk about things too.

We have a Boys on the Run program at our school--a mom and dad of boys started it and runs it. A few other parents also pitch in support. I'm so glad and thankful for these parents' initiative and that DS can participate. At least one girl has chosen to be a part of the boys program over the girls program. I'm not a runner and DH wouldn't have been able to spearhead something like this--I write this a lot, but we just love our school for all the awesome parent involvement.

[mommylamb]

I don't see society as being anti-male. But I do think that we need to find ways of making education work as optimally as possible for all students. Part of this is teaching our boys how to get along in a world that has certain, often reasonable expectations. But part of it is making sure we aren't trying to slam a square peg into a round hole, and that we are giving adequate attention to their needs. Balance always.

I was shocked that the difference between social skills of boys and girls was wider than it was when comparing income levels.

[Kindra178]

For better or for worse, patriarchy prevails. However, education, especially the early to mid elementary years, is set up for boys to fail and girls to succeed. It has always been like this; the increased standards in early years has exacerbated this already existing issue. An interesting study commissioned in Great Britain about differences in reading between boys and girls:

http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/policy/boys_reading_commission

[speo]

I find it very discouraging the situation of boys in school, especially elementary school. My DS1 has very good self-control. For him, I do not think he is at a disadvantage as compared to girls. In my experience, he is unusual. However, my DS2 most definitely has a difficult time. He is VERY social, somewhat wild, energetic and has difficulty with self-control. He also likes to gravitate to those types of boys. As people would say, he is all boy. :rolleye0014: Sitting in a class (at a table with other children) and being expected to write sentences in K is not that easy for him. Nor is it easy for MOST of the boys in his class. We redshirted him (2 weeks from cutoff) and I cannot be more happy with that decision. If we had put him in on time, he would have been in trouble a lot. It is demoralizing to be in trouble a lot. Having gone through TK and being older, he can mostly hold himself together.

The article didn't mention, but I think some of the disparity is possibly a reduction in recess, PE, and an increase in the difficulty level of the curriculum. His K class is even harder than DS1's class. If a child can't continue to focus, then they will miss out on learning those items. And they might have lower self-esteem from being reprimanded more often.

Here are a couple of other examples that happen at our school that sets boys up to fail more:

-Removal of recess as a punishment for not focusing properly in class or causing problems. I truly get why this is done. There is little else a teacher may be able to take away ... BUT boys need exercise. A LOT!!

-Just this week, DS2's K teacher is allowing them to choose their own table group. There are 5-6 kids per table and they rotate with these kids all day. Well, DS2 picked a table with 5 other boy friends of his. Yesterday, was the first day and he lost his recess for talking. He was talking later and lost recess for today. :(

-The entire K (4 classes) just put on a show. The classes spent 6 weeks, 5 days a week, every morning for 2 hours practicing. 4 of those weeks were spent on the stage standing on risers for 2 hours practicing songs and dances!! It was insane. I watched it and I am so disheartened. The boys had a hard time standing still. Many got scolded and the head teacher was so angry much of the time. However, at the show the parents go and see it and say it looks so cute. It was wonderful. It would be hard to know what it took for those kids to get to that point. And in my opinion it wasn't worth it (for any kid), but most especially for many of the boys.

[anonomom]

Color me skeptical. I remember reading exactly this type of article back in the mid-90s, when I was studying sexism in schools. And Christina Hoff-Sommers, who is quoted in the article, has been beating this drum for at least 15 years. I submit that the problem isn't the schools; it's the people who insist on stereotyping kids into rigid gender roles and then demanding that institutions cater to one gender over the other.

Not that I think school are shangri-las for children of either gender; I agree that we expect an awful lot of very young kids. I'm just not at all convinced that there's such an inherent different between boys and girls, except those differences that we as a society continue to impose and enforce.

[lizzywednesday]

My father has long felt that boys are punished for being boys in many places and that has hurt our sons as much as it has hurt our daughters.

He says that we socialize our sons and daughters differently, yet, in some circles it seems that we punish our sons for not acting like girls.

I feel like I am not articulating this particularly well, but it's something that does bear looking at and change for BOTH our sons and our daughters, because we are doing our children a disservice by going into their lives with our own preconceived notions about what X or Y "should" be.

I know I have a daughter and should probably recuse myself on that basis, but ... I have brothers and nephews, too. And it's for their sake that I wade into these discussions.

[swissair81]

My son will be starting an all boys school next year. I have to admit that I can't wait. He's totally surrounded and outnumbered by girls at home.

[anonomom]

My father has long felt that boys are punished for being boys in many places and that has hurt our sons as much as it has hurt our daughters.

He says that we socialize our sons and daughters differently, yet, in some circles it seems that we punish our sons for not acting like girls.

I feel like I am not articulating this particularly well, but it's something that does bear looking at and change for BOTH our sons and our daughters, because we are doing our children a disservice by going into their lives with our own preconceived notions about what X or Y "should" be.

I know I have a daughter and should probably recuse myself on that basis, but ... I have brothers and nephews, too. And it's for their sake that I wade into these discussions.

I actually agree with your dad that we discipline boys and girls differently, but I see the opposite issue -- that young boys are generally allowed to get away with much more because "boys will be boys," whereas girls are expected from an early age to develop more self control. If I had a nickel for every time I've seen a preschool boy acting badly while his parent smiles indulgently and coos "boys will be boys," I'd have a nice full piggy bank. I've seen boys get away with hitting, jumping on furniture, screaming in people's ears, crawling around under a restaurant table, throwing food (beyond toddlerhood), just because they're boys. And every time I've raised an eyebrow, I've been told I'd understand when I had a son -- boys just can't be stopped from doing these things. And these same parents are mystified when their darlings struggle in kindergarten.

I 100% agree that we need to allow kids to move in school. We need regular PE and active recess times and brain breaks and all of that. I just think that the benefits are more even-handed that many would like to believe.

[Kindra178]

I am of the camp that boys and girls are different. It's so interesting to me that it makes people uncomfortable. Just because I am different doesn't mean I am less smart or capable. Just different. I birjed babies. I fed babies. I am different.

[mommylamb]

I actually agree with your dad that we discipline boys and girls differently, but I see the opposite issue -- that young boys are generally allowed to get away with much more because "boys will be boys," whereas girls are expected from an early age to develop more self control. If I had a nickel for every time I've seen a preschool boy acting badly while his parent smiles indulgently and coos "boys will be boys," I'd have a nice full piggy bank. I've seen boys get away with hitting, jumping on furniture, screaming in people's ears, crawling around under a restaurant table, throwing food (beyond toddlerhood), just because they're boys. And every time I've raised an eyebrow, I've been told I'd understand when I had a son -- boys just can't be stopped from doing these things. And these same parents are mystified when their darlings struggle in kindergarten.

I 100% agree that we need to allow kids to move in school. We need regular PE and active recess times and brain breaks and all of that. I just think that the benefits are more even-handed that many would like to believe.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think this is entirely fair. I would never allow DS1 to act out and do things like hit or others or behave in an uncontrollable fashion. I hate the boys will be boys mentality when that mentality is used to excuse those kinds of behaviors. I've seen people do that too, and I find it terrible. However, even my DS1, who is definitely much more capable of sitting and doing class work than a lot of other boys, can't do it as long as most of the girls can. He doesn't thrive on the type of structure that is typical of certain classrooms. Again, his current teacher is fantastic and he has been thriving in her class (and thankfully, it's a multiage class, so he will be with her again next year). However, I know he will come across teachers who are more traditional, and I worry about that, even though I think he can fair better than many other boys.

I do think that there are some overall differences between boys and girls, and of course this is a spectrum. I never would have said that back in my undergraduate days when I was getting a concentration in women's studies. I definitely consider myself a feminist in every way. But I don't think that every gender difference can be totally attributed to socialization.

[bisous]

I find it very discouraging the situation of boys in school, especially elementary school. My DS1 has very good self-control. For him, I do not think he is at a disadvantage as compared to girls. In my experience, he is unusual. However, my DS2 most definitely has a difficult time. He is VERY social, somewhat wild, energetic and has difficulty with self-control. He also likes to gravitate to those types of boys. As people would say, he is all boy. :rolleye0014: Sitting in a class (at a table with other children) and being expected to write sentences in K is not that easy for him. Nor is it easy for MOST of the boys in his class. We redshirted him (2 weeks from cutoff) and I cannot be more happy with that decision. If we had put him in on time, he would have been in trouble a lot. It is demoralizing to be in trouble a lot. Having gone through TK and being older, he can mostly hold himself together.

The article didn't mention, but I think some of the disparity is possibly a reduction in recess, PE, and an increase in the difficulty level of the curriculum. His K class is even harder than DS1's class. If a child can't continue to focus, then they will miss out on learning those items. And they might have lower self-esteem from being reprimanded more often.

Here are a couple of other examples that happen at our school that sets boys up to fail more:

-Removal of recess as a punishment for not focusing properly in class or causing problems. I truly get why this is done. There is little else a teacher may be able to take away ... BUT boys need exercise. A LOT!!

-Just this week, DS2's K teacher is allowing them to choose their own table group. There are 5-6 kids per table and they rotate with these kids all day. Well, DS2 picked a table with 5 other boy friends of his. Yesterday, was the first day and he lost his recess for talking. He was talking later and lost recess for today. :(

-The entire K (4 classes) just put on a show. The classes spent 6 weeks, 5 days a week, every morning for 2 hours practicing. 4 of those weeks were spent on the stage standing on risers for 2 hours practicing songs and dances!! It was insane. I watched it and I am so disheartened. The boys had a hard time standing still. Many got scolded and the head teacher was so angry much of the time. However, at the show the parents go and see it and say it looks so cute. It was wonderful. It would be hard to know what it took for those kids to get to that point. And in my opinion it wasn't worth it (for any kid), but most especially for many of the boys.

I agree with so much here! My kids are like yours except they are reversed and it is DS2 that can sit and DS1 that truly cannot. I can't believe how much time was devoted to the play! I'm sure some of the kids enjoyed the theatre process but it does require an awful lot sitting and standing around. I think I agree with you--not worth it! Funny enough a friend of mine just circulated on facebook an article from the Washington Post about a K class that cancelled the annual show because of increased demands to get kids ready for college. There was a pretty overwhelming outcry on facebook about how bad that was. I agree, the idea of K-ers getting ready for college is ludicrous. At the same time, I remember being one of the few that questioned the use of time to have a play with this age of kids. Sure, it will completely adorable but my kids would be just totally not into it at all. Maybe I'd feel differently if they really loved performing!

[westwoodmom04]

I am of the camp that boys and girls are different. It's so interesting to me that it makes people uncomfortable. Just because I am different doesn't mean I am less smart or capable. Just different. I birjed babies. I fed babies. I am different.

Having one of each, I totally agree with this. Not trying to go off on a tangent, I wonder if some of these differences might be addressed by having different school cut off dates for boys and girls. I've yet to meet a girl that could benefit from redshirting but I know of plenty of younger boys that really struggle with the sitting and paying attention requirements of a full-day academic kindergarten. Pre-first is a big thing in our area privates and the classes are primarily filled with boys.

[anonomom]

I am of the camp that boys and girls are different. It's so interesting to me that it makes people uncomfortable. Just because I am different doesn't mean I am less smart or capable. Just different. I birjed babies. I fed babies. I am different.

I'm not uncomfortable with biological difference. I am extremely uncomfortable when behavioral differences are alleged to be inherent to a sex and immutable, and then used as a call to disparate treatment. And I am uncomfortable to the point of anger when I see the successes of girls used as "evidence" of a problem and proof that the system needs to be changed to cater more heavily to boys. And I say this as the mother of a son as well as daughters.

[bisous]

I'm not uncomfortable with biological difference. I am extremely uncomfortable when behavioral differences are alleged to be inherent to a sex and immutable, and then used as a call to disparate treatment. And I am uncomfortable to the point of anger when I see the successes of girls used as "evidence" of a problem and proof that the system needs to be changed to cater more heavily to boys. And I say this as the mother of a son as well as daughters.

Would it make you uncomfortable if the success went the other way? If girls were hugely less successful in schools? I'm just wondering! I tend to be of the belief that girls and boys are different and I'm really okay with different treatments. That said, I have THREE boys and the variety among them is also huge! So I understand that there are personal characteristics outside of anything that has to do with sex differences. I really want everyone to be successful and I would just hate to see the implementation of anything that made any group suffer. I'm totally fine with implementing something that will help another group. Does that make sense? Is that even possible?

[lovin2shop]

So, I have 2 boys and one is very mild mannered, well behaved, and achievement oriented in school. The other not so much. And, I know plenty of high activity, highly distracted girls as well. And I agree, that it can be hard on the reverse side, the high energy girl that is not "ladylike" and the calm boy who is not masculine enough. My oldest does not need anything special from school despite the fact that he is boy, but my younger one needs more supervision, and not really because he's "all boy", just cause he is who he is. I think it would be better to view the individual needs of students without a gender lense.

Having said that, the whole push to get girls into STEM subjects, I support, but it does make me wonder if the professions themselves will become more friendly to working moms as a result. I started out at one of the Big 6 (at the time) CPA firms, and despite the fact that they hired more women out of college and were constantly touting their family friendly cultures in magazine spreads for recruiting purposes; the fact is that very few women were willing to make the family sacrifices to make it to the partner level. In my career, I've definitely dealt with a LOT of sexism in the workplace, and I've always found it ironic that girls perform so well academically, but then face such an uphill battle when they get into the workplace. Kind of deviating off topic here, but this has always entered my mind when discussing gender roles in education.

[Momit]

I look forward to reading the article tonight. I read the "Trouble with Boys" book when DS was a baby and have been interested in this subject ever since. Now that he is ready to start K it's even more important to me.

[speo]

I actually agree with your dad that we discipline boys and girls differently, but I see the opposite issue -- that young boys are generally allowed to get away with much more because "boys will be boys," whereas girls are expected from an early age to develop more self control. If I had a nickel for every time I've seen a preschool boy acting badly while his parent smiles indulgently and coos "boys will be boys," I'd have a nice full piggy bank. I've seen boys get away with hitting, jumping on furniture, screaming in people's ears, crawling around under a restaurant table, throwing food (beyond toddlerhood), just because they're boys. And every time I've raised an eyebrow, I've been told I'd understand when I had a son -- boys just can't be stopped from doing these things. And these same parents are mystified when their darlings struggle in kindergarten.

I 100% agree that we need to allow kids to move in school. We need regular PE and active recess times and brain breaks and all of that. I just think that the benefits are more even-handed that many would like to believe.

I get what you are saying. Obviously, many of these things should be disciplined. I am a quiet, non-aggressive, VERY much follow-the-rules kind of a person. My DH is also and as I said earlier, so is DS1. DS2 is not at all. He is physical, fun, silly, and like I said very social. He cannot focus on following the rules and many times, his energy will overpower whatever rules he may know. I do not see this with very many girls, but there is a group of at least 15 boys out of 88 that are like this at our school. Just bring them near each other and they are loud, silly and usually wrestling. I very much would like my son to follow the rules, not embarrass me sometimes, and be calmer. I work with him everyday, but he is who he is. At times it can be exhausting trying to maintain some control with him. I am sure others feel this way and probably let certain behaviors slide. I do not want to reprimand so much that he really starts to feel bad about himself. I have to pick my battles. He is a very loving boy.

[anonomom]

Would it make you uncomfortable if the success went the other way? If girls were hugely less successful in schools? I'm just wondering! I tend to be of the belief that girls and boys are different and I'm really okay with different treatments. That said, I have THREE boys and the variety among them is also huge! So I understand that there are personal characteristics outside of anything that has to do with sex differences. I really want everyone to be successful and I would just hate to see the implementation of anything that made any group suffer. I'm totally fine with implementing something that will help another group. Does that make sense? Is that even possible?

Yes, that makes sense. And I'd be very happy for both my daughters and my son if the way certain things were done in schools changed. But both the NYT article and the paper upon which it's based rely solely on the fact that women are doing well academically as evidence of a problem, and that sits poorly with me. Seriously -- they whole "problem" the paper is purporting to discuss is that women are now earning the majority of college degrees. (the horror!). Other "problems": girls score better in reading, and while boys still outperform girls in math, they're not outperforming the girls as much as they should. That's where I start calling BS.

Reading further into the paper, there are some decent points. In fact, aside from its initial set of faulty assumptions, it seems quite reasonable:

"The reasons behind the gender gap in academic performance are
complex, and important research questions remain. The average
male deficit in social and behavioral skills is certainly one factor, but
other there are other factors. As we show in our book, boys are more
negatively affected than girls by growing up in families with absent or
less-educated fathers. Boys are also more negatively affected than girls
by classrooms that lack a strong learning-oriented environment. Too
many adolescent boys underinvest in education due to out-of-date
masculine stereotypes that depict academic excellence, attachment to
school, and interest in art, music and drama as unmasculine. These
stereotypes, in turn, are fueled by boys’ failure to understand (or the
systems failure effectively to communicate) the strong connection
between effort in school and later success in the labor market. While the
causes are complex, our results contain a straightforward conclusion:
because boys’ academic deficit is well established by middle school,
reforms targeting the early and middle school years offer the greatest
potential for closing the gender gap in college completion."

The remaining problem I have is that I have never seen a reform proposed that aims to change the societal standards at play here, rather than changing schools to give boys an advantage. I am 100% percent in favor of changing the societal issues -- both boys and girls need to know the value of education and need to learn to be prepared students. Boys need to learn there's no shame in being smart and they need not to devalue learning and books because they're perceived as feminine. But the reforms I have seem proposed (not here; it's an issue I've come across IRL too) amount to boosting boys at the expense of girls: Making sure there aren't too many "girlish" books in the classroom library because heaven forbid a boy be expected to read a book about a girl, changing lessons to "engage" boys (whatever that means) without bothering to question whether all of the children are/could be engaged, making classrooms more boisterous, etc. I don't think any of that is helpful, and most of it is harmful.

[Seitvonzu]

why should income level affect children's social skills? i understand being surprised by the disparity in academic skills being greater for male/female groups than low/high income, but social skills? why does having less economic standing make a kid less socially appropriate?

[maestramommy]

why should income level affect children's social skills? i understand being surprised by the disparity in academic skills being greater for male/female groups than low/high income, but social skills? why does having less economic standing make a kid less socially appropriate?

I'm just guessing, and I know there must be exceptions, but could it be that having less income means a kid is less likely to go to pre-k, therefore less likely to learn the social skills "needed," or at least more desirable in Kindergarten? Since actual academic learning takes place in K these days, certain skills are needed in order to facilitate that learning, the skills that are talked about in this article.

[carolinacool]

I'm just guessing, and I know there must be exceptions, but could it be that having less income means a kid is less likely to go to pre-k, therefore less likely to learn the social skills "needed," or at least more desirable in Kindergarten? Since actual academic learning takes place in K these days, certain skills are needed in order to facilitate that learning, the skills that are talked about in this article.

This. And, in many cases, children in low-income families are likely to have parents who lack social skills themselves. My mom teaches in a low-income school in a rural area and she says in many cases, it's easy to see why many of the "troublesome" students, if you will, have issues. Over the years, she's had many conversations with parents who frankly don't know how to handle themselves in a professional way. Last year, one of her students had gotten in so much trouble, the principal called a meeting with the parent. It went badly, and as they were leaving, the mom told her 9-year-old that he didn't have to listen to the principal because "she's just a b!tch anyway." Seriously.

Of course, not every case is like that, but i think in a majority low-income school, you'll run into that more than you will at an upper-income private school. Even if a parent feels that way about a principal, they have the social graces not to say it loudly in earshot.

[niccig]

why should income level affect children's social skills? i understand being surprised by the disparity in academic skills being greater for male/female groups than low/high income, but social skills? why does having less economic standing make a kid less socially appropriate?

If both parents are working multiple jobs, there's less opportunity for socializing. If a 3 year old is cared by different people when parents are working, they may not be in the best social setting, think left with neighbors or older cousin that may not be fully engaging with the child or given full supervision. No preschool, pre-K opportunities to socialize with peers in group learning situation. They may be socializing with family members of similar age, but socialization requires supervision too by an adult to model and referee appropriate interactions. If the family is stressed about putting food on the table, parents may be more irritable/angry due to stress and the kids take that in and learn to respond in similar ways.

Of course, this isn't the case for all children growing up in families with lower SES.

[KrisM]

Sorry that Idon't have time to read the article now but sounds like the conversation my mom and I had earlier. We were both bemoaning the lack of a boy based program like Girls on the Run. Boys need exercise, empowerment, self esteem, and a place to talk about things too.

It's called Stride and I believe it's pretty new. Our elementary has one of the larger Girls on the Run programs with about 90 girls in it this year, which is about 20% of the total school population, so around 40% of girls. This year, we were asked to try Stride, which is for boys grades 3-5 and has similar components to GOTR. We have about 75 boys signed up for it. It's also run by the YMCA. The 5k we are doing is for both GOTR and Stride this year.

[larig]

Color me skeptical. I remember reading exactly this type of article back in the mid-90s, when I was studying sexism in schools. And Christina Hoff-Sommers, who is quoted in the article, has been beating this drum for at least 15 years. I submit that the problem isn't the schools; it's the people who insist on stereotyping kids into rigid gender roles and then demanding that institutions cater to one gender over the other.

Not that I think school are shangri-las for children of either gender; I agree that we expect an awful lot of very young kids. I'm just not at all convinced that there's such an inherent different between boys and girls, except those differences that we as a society continue to impose and enforce.

Yep, this. I was starting my PhD work in 2002 and remember that same Hoff-Sommers stuff too. My dissertation research dealt with women studying engineering, so I was knee-deep in that "gender differences" literature.

I do think part of the problem is that we are expecting more of kids at an earlier and earlier age.

[maestramommy]

I do think part of the problem is that we are expecting more of kids at an earlier and earlier age.

I totally agree. Back up a few months ago when Dh and I were discussing the possibility that DD2 might have ADHD (her ped thought she did), Dh said right up,"I don't think of ADHD as a condition, it's a set of personality traits that are inconvenient for the way we have structured our schools and society." Turns out she doesn't have it, but I think the point stands, esp. with kids we "think" have ADHD but really don't. Their personality traits just aren't convenient in today's school setting, because we expect so much more. And this is true for girls as well as boys, though I will concede that boys are impacted in greater numbers.

[Kindra178]

I'm not uncomfortable with biological difference. I am extremely uncomfortable when behavioral differences are alleged to be inherent to a sex and immutable, and then used as a call to disparate treatment. And I am uncomfortable to the point of anger when I see the successes of girls used as "evidence" of a problem and proof that the system needs to be changed to cater more heavily to boys. And I say this as the mother of a son as well as daughters.

With all due respect, your son isn't old enough where these differences in school have meaning for you. I don't see the success of girls as evidence of the problem. The differences are more than behavior. My ds can sit still with the best of them. He doesn't get in trouble for chatting, like the girls do. But he can't write as well or as long as the girls can. Every single girl in the class has better handwriting than the boys, even comparing the average girls to the average boys. The girls write longer and more sentences in a more presentable, easy to read way. This is more than socialization.

I have had the unique opportunity to observe various Montessori classrooms over the years, for kids ages 3-6. In each classroom, kids serve their own and eat their snack whenever the snack table is open, two at a time. I would watch a pair a boys eat their snack and leave the table. Every single time I have observed, I have witnessed a Montessori directress tell two 4 year old girls to move on, as they would sit and chat during snack. At age 4. How is this socialized at that young age?

[anonomom]

No, my son isn't in school yet, so I am not an absolute authority on how all boys act in elementary school. But I am nauseatingly familiar with the "boys are so totally different from girls and you can't possibly know until you have one!" school of thought. I've been hearing it since DD1 was an infant. Funny, now that I do have a boy who isn't appreciably different from my girls, those same people express disbelief that I still won't admit boys are just different and claim that if I just wait a little longer, I'll see it. Almost 3 years in, and I still don't see it.

I've been in DD's classrooms fairly regularly for almost three years now, and nothing I have seen yet points me to conclude that boys are so different that they need to be treated differently from girls. In every class she's had, there have been some boisterous boys and some boys that have no problem sitting down and completing the work. There have been girls who sit quietly and girls (like mine) who couldn't sit still for all the money in the world. I think that perhaps we end up seeing what we expect to/want to see: you believe boys are essentially different and you notice the things that back your view. I think there aren't inherent gender-based behavior differences and I notice the stuff that backs me up. We're probably both right and both wrong, and that's fine. But if we're going to start changing classroom policy to solve an alleged bias against boys, I think we'd best be darned certain there is one.

[inmypjs]

I have read the article but am still working my way through the responses. I have one boy and one girl. I have thought for quite awhile that there are 2 main things that make our education system more geared to girls.

First, the overwhelming majority of female teachers means that feminine styles and approaches to teaching, leading, relating and problem solving, etc, are all that many kids experience. There is nothing better/worse about teachers of either gender, but the absence of male teachers means that the male perspective is just not there. Imagine what it would be like if across our country, almost all teachers were male, with only a few women at each building, and in some cases none. I think it would be a different experience for our kids. Not good/bad, just different.

Second, I perceive traditional public education more than ever focuses on audio-sequential, two-dimensional tasks. This is a huge mismatch for visual spatial learners, who are often boys. There are absolutely girls who are visual-spatial learners too, so I am not saying this is universally true. But I really do think the sit-down, do worksheets, show what you know with words approach is generally harder on boys.

[inmypjs]

Back up a few months ago when Dh and I were discussing the possibility that DD2 might have ADHD (her ped thought she did), Dh said right up,"I don't think of ADHD as a condition, it's a set of personality traits that are inconvenient for the way we have structured our schools and society."

I absolutely love this. Your DH is a wise man. Neither of my kids has ADD/ADHD, but I feel that statement is very very true for a lot of diagnoses.

[bisous]

I totally agree. Back up a few months ago when Dh and I were discussing the possibility that DD2 might have ADHD (her ped thought she did), Dh said right up,"I don't think of ADHD as a condition, it's a set of personality traits that are inconvenient for the way we have structured our schools and society." Turns out she doesn't have it, but I think the point stands, esp. with kids we "think" have ADHD but really don't. Their personality traits just aren't convenient in today's school setting, because we expect so much more. And this is true for girls as well as boys, though I will concede that boys are impacted in greater numbers.

Oh gosh, I wish I could feel this way! DS1 has ADHD. I have yet to find a place where the "personality traits" that make up ADHD are advantageous to him! Maybe his case is just particularly bad. He's isn't good at sports, he's dangerous out and about (not paying attention to cars, etc.), has a hard time sitting in school, I can't trust him to watch my younger children for even five minutes. He's a good little reader. Thank heavens because that is his saving grace at school. I see his ADHD affecting every aspect of his life. I do think that there are many other little boys that are neurotypical that look like they might have ADHD in K but its just a function of immaturity. Obviously there are some girls that fall in that category as well.

[dogmom]

I think the article is more well thought out than others I have read on the subject, but there are still some issues I have with the whole concept, most of which have to do with my age. Being slightly older than the demographic here I remember I time when school was MUCH less accomadating to children that could not sit and just do repetitive drilling, etc. My brother was a kid that I'm sure would have some kind of ADHD dx, but that didn't exist back then, certainly in a way that would help in school. It was very problamatic for him. However, even in that environment that boys were at this disadvantage, by the time I got to high school those handicaps seemed to have disappeared. I couple this with the behavior I see in other boys my DS age in school. Some of them really have a trouble sitting still, paying attention, etc. I see teachers engaging them, much more freedom to move around, a lot more engagement, etc. But I also see a subset of those boys that I just think are not told to have any discipline. I've seen these kids for you on the soccer field, at the park, at school, at play dates. Some really have trouble managing themselves, I see their parents working constantly with them. There is a whole other subset, however, where I see the parents treat their daughters very differently from their sons, generally tolerating social behavior I would not. So I have to admit I'm a little biased because these are the parents IRL I hear complain most often about how the schools are so unfair to their boys.

I do think there are some very real biases about boys, but I see it really playing out among minorities with harsher discipline for behavior, etc. (Which has been borne out in some Federal cases recently in some school districts.) However, when we speak of problems with socialization I do think that we have to acknowledge that boys and girls will often mirror what they see, so boys act out. Girls often will be in abusive relationships, self harm, etc. But there are examples of both happening in both sexes.

[egoldber]

I think you have to be careful assigning personality traits to gender. I do think that the current educational climate favors sedate, attentive children with better fine motor skills. That is NOT always girls. MANY girls struggle with a lot of these same "boy" issues. I have 2 girls and their individual personalities are incredibly different. I have one of those hyper, fidgety kids. I also have a girl who has poor fine motor skills. And both my girls have been marginalized in the "girl group" because they didn't fit a pattern of the sweet, quiet girl who liked to do crafts and color. You can't say that school as a monolith favors all girls over all boys.


I remember a time when school was MUCH less accommodating to children that could not sit and just do repetitive drilling

Yes, me too. Those kids were just called "bad" and the teachers either drew names (no lie) or they were put in a class of "bad kids". Looking back on it, it seems so obvious to me that so many of these kids had learning disabilities, ADHD, ASDs, etc. Diagnoses are not much more prevalent and schools now have to accommodate these children in the classrooms. Whether they do a great job is a different story. But there is so much more engagement of these kids and different teaching strategies for all types of learners than there was when I was in school.

Another thing that was different in a positive way is that we had 2 recesses until third grade. And they made us play hard. The teachers led games of kickball, organized running games, led jump rope activities, etc. And I can remember on nice afternoons in the fall and spring they would take us outside for "bonus recess".

[minnie-zb]

I totally agree. Back up a few months ago when Dh and I were discussing the possibility that DD2 might have ADHD (her ped thought she did), Dh said right up,"I don't think of ADHD as a condition, it's a set of personality traits that are inconvenient for the way we have structured our schools and society." Turns out she doesn't have it, but I think the point stands, esp. with kids we "think" have ADHD but really don't. Their personality traits just aren't convenient in today's school setting, because we expect so much more. And this is true for girls as well as boys, though I will concede that boys are impacted in greater numbers.

I'll have to say, I'm surprised your comment regarding ADHD has not drawn more ire. I read this last night and found it offensive to all of the kids who do have ADHD or ADD. It goes right to the core of people not understanding. I would ask you and your husband to be more sensitive in how you throw this comment out.

[egoldber]

Yes, as a parent with now two ADHD diagnosed kids (one Hyperactive, one Combined), it did bother me a little. But I think what the PP meant was the marginalization of developmentally normal, active kids as ADHD. But many parents face a stigma that their kid with ADHD is just bad, or needs discipline, or doesn't get enough exercise. It gets tiresome.

[minnie-zb]

Yes, as a parent with now two ADHD diagnosed kids (one Hyperactive, one Combined), it did bother me a little. But I think what the PP meant was the marginalization of developmentally normal, active kids as ADHD. But many parents face a stigma that their kid with ADHD is just bad, or needs discipline, or doesn't get enough exercise. It gets tiresome.

I agree, I don't think it was said maliciously. I think it was said out of not understanding. And don't forget the stigma of lazy parenting!

[american_mama]

I'm rather interested in this topic and have been ever since I was pregnant with my 3rd (who turned out to be a boy... a well-behaved boy who can easily control himself in school and is fairly similar to his sisters, so the topic is still more academic for me than personal). There was something on the Today show this morning about the topic too, some global study saying boys were not faring as well.

I've read the article and all the responses, and still need to process my thoughts, but have a couple random ideas:

1. How do the differences in outcomes break down by wealth/eliteness/quality of school or college? The article says ".... boys still do quite well in the best-performing schools. When good grades bring high status, boys respond." I'd like to know a lot more than these two sentences... what type of schools are these (elementary, middle, high school, public or private, college or K-12). I've been around various fairly elite colleges and there it does not seem like boys are disadvantaged in practice or outcome, but I would expect women to outnumber and outperform men at many less elite, more job-oriented colleges. And what constitutes grades bringing status, and why is this missing from other schools?

2. What about the slacker style that seems so popular to me with many teens, especially boys? It seems desirable to be seen as casual, relaxed, exerting no effort. Teens have wanted to be cool for a long time, but the emphasis on no effort seems greater than in the past and that certainly isn't a trait that leads to success. Are boys more into this persona than girls and if so, why?

3. Because of the blip I heard on the Today show about a global study, I'm curious about how this issue varies around the world. And I truly mean around the world, not just the US and Canada or England. What is going on with educational outcomes by gender in other countries that may (or may not) have different educational structures than the US, may (or may not) have a focus on STEM fields for girls and boys? I wouldn't be surprised if many countries are making academics a greater and greater focus at younger ages, which generally seems to disadvantage boys, but I don't know more about the similarities and differences than that.

4. Is this temporary like pent-up demand? Like those who were previously held back rise due to a number of factors, but that with time, the issue stabilizes and we wouldn't see boy-girl differences in school? I don't personally believe this very much. I can believe girls might be at or edging towards a high in X educational outcomes, but I think that any downturn will be very small. What about the idea that boys themselves opt out as girls participate more in something? I don't know if that's true, but this once came up in conversation with my dad and I about another aspect of male-female differences. As girls or women particpate more in something, does it become less attractive to men to participate too?

I am going to read the other link provided by a poster and re-read some of the responses.

[sste]

Well, in defense of someone's dh, forget who, I do think talent, giftedness, disability is all defined by environment and what is useful/adaptive in a given society. I will freely admit that in another era I would have been cast adrift on an ice float for my rather uninspiring physical abilities, probably before I even managed to die of childbirth! In this society, I am happily employed and decently compensated for the same set of skills and traits.

I can def. imagine societies where ADD/HD was an advantage, such as where risk taking is of high value, nomadicism, physical energy and endurance. Even in modern society there are some careers that lend themselves to ADD traits.

Of course, I think what posters are getting at, is that short of rapid advances in time travel, people are stuck in their current society and it can be quite hard in a lot of settings, perhaps esp. school.

[maestramommy]

I'll have to say, I'm surprised your comment regarding ADHD has not drawn more ire. I read this last night and found it offensive to all of the kids who do have ADHD or ADD. It goes right to the core of people not understanding. I would ask you and your husband to be more sensitive in how you throw this comment out.

I'm sorry I did not realize it would offend parents of ADHD kids! That is not what I meant at all. And I think I do understand because our ped has ADHD and told us why he thought our DD had it as well. He talked to us a long time about the history of ADHD and what it used to be called before the current name came about. To him (our ped) it's now classified as a diagnoseable condition so that parents can access treatment/services/interventions for their kid. But Dh didn't want to think of ADHD as a condition, in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has it. That is why he said what he did. We have been seeing a counselor for DD because even though she ended up not being diagnosed she is very challenging at home. She was not diagnosed because frankly she rarely displays any of her home behaviors at school, certainly never in the classroom.

This leads me to think about articles I see asking why ADHD is becoming much diagnosed these days. Maybe diagnostic tools are better now, but I also think that institutional school just puts a lot of pressure on all kids, but on some kids most of all. I hear and read here many complaints about all the desk work, lack of recess, lack of PE. Any kids who cannot tolerate this day in and day out is labeled and inquiries are made as to whether they might have ADHD. My neighbor's son was put through this in K and 1st grade. Luckily his father is a pharmacist and refused to consider putting him on meds.

Egoldber, I also understand your point of stigma a kid faces when they do have ADHD. I understand from talking to friends with kids who DO have ADHD when meds are really necessary and the profound difference they make in their kids lives. It's not about how much more exercise or discipline they need.

[Kindra178]

Well, in defense of someone's dh, forget who, I do think talent, giftedness, disability is all defined by environment and what is useful/adaptive in a given society. I will freely admit that in another era I would have been cast adrift on an ice float for my rather uninspiring physical abilities, probably before I even managed to die of childbirth! In this society, I am happily employed and decently compensated for the same set of skills and traits.

I can def. imagine societies where ADD/HD was an advantage, such as where risk taking is of high value, nomadicism, physical energy and endurance. Even in modern society there are some careers that lend themselves to ADD traits.

Of course, I think what posters are getting at, is that short of rapid advances in time travel, people are stuck in their current society and it can be quite hard in a lot of settings, perhaps esp. school.

My friend's brother is a double Phd. He is world renowned in the field of astrophysics as a professor and consultant. He absolutely is on the spectrum. His singular focus on the incredibly difficult and abstract math and science he deals with serves him well. He also had difficulties in elementary school, both in following directions and making friendships. He rarely completed the regular class assignments and often did poorly on in class assessments. Because he is about 50, nothing was really done to help him in school. These days he would have received considerable intervention, especially on the social front. Such interventions would have been really beneficial for him.

[inmypjs]

I hope my agreement with the ADD/ADHD comment was not offensive to anyone. My own child has multiple learning disabilities and has been evaluated for ADD/ADHD. I did not take the comment to mean that conditions like ADD/ADHD are not real, documented brain differences. On the contrary, I found it refreshing to hear a perspective on a condition like ADD/ADHD that was not strictly illness-based. I get very tired of people viewing my child as broken, when actually how his brain processes information has some advantages and positive qualities too.

[maestramommy]

I hope my agreement with the ADD/ADHD comment was not offensive to anyone. My own child has multiple learning disabilities and has been evaluated for ADD/ADHD. I did not take the comment to mean that conditions like ADD/ADHD are not real, documented brain differences. On the contrary, I found it refreshing to hear a perspective on a condition like ADD/ADHD that was not strictly illness-based. I get very tired of people viewing my child as broken, when actually how his brain processes information has some advantages and positive qualities too.


Thanks, that WAS what I was trying to convey. I apologize that it came out wrong!

[lizzywednesday]

... I get very tired of people viewing my child as broken, when actually how his brain processes information has some advantages and positive qualities too.

This describes how I feel about my brother Joe, who does have a learning disability (not sure which one, but he'd had an IEP since grade school), and that learning disability made him feel "stupid." He classified activities that I had done (drama club & choruses) when I was in high school as "for smart kids" and didn't even give himself a chance to participate. It broke my heart because I felt like those activities would have had so many benefits for him outside the classroom!

He isn't stupid; he is a very bright kid. He is also very creative, especially linguistically, and an artsy-fartsy type for as long as he's had great art teachers.

He simply learns differently. It doesn't make him stupid or broken; it makes him different.

And the challenge, in my opinion, is getting that across in such a way that it doesn't feel isolating.

[chlobo]

Does this kind of discussion make anyone else sad for our kids? There is so much pressure to perform and conform. There is very little margin for "different" in our public school system. I wish all parents had more resources to find learning environments best suited for their kids.

[Mikey0709]

YES CHLOBO!!!! 100% I feel the same way. I wish i had unlimited resources for my kids - - THAT is my dream....but that's for the other post......

[larig]

I understood what Maestramommy said to mean something akin to what the radio host and author, Thom Hartman proposed in his hunter v. farmer hypothesis. (he wrote a book on it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_hypothesis


Hartmann notes that most or all humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years, but that this standard gradually changed as agriculture developed in most societies, and more people worldwide became farmers. Over many years, most humans adapted to farming cultures, but Hartmann speculates that people with ADHD retained some of the older hunter characteristics.

A key component of the hypothesis is that the proposed "hyperfocus" aspect of ADHD is a gift or benefit under appropriate circumstances. The hypothesis also explains the distractibility factor in ADHD individuals and their short attention span for subject matter that does not trigger hyperfocus, along with various other characteristics such as apathy towards social norms, poor planning and organizing ability, distorted sense of time, impatience, attraction to variety or novelty or excitement, and impulsiveness. It is argued that in the hunter-gatherer cultures that preceded farming societies, hunters needed hyperfocus more than gatherers.

So I took what she was saying to mean that these are lingering traits.

I find his theory pretty fascinating--no way to really prove it, but it's interesting to think about.

As a mom of a non-NT kid, it resonates with me. My kiddo seems wired differently, and in a really interesting way.

[smilequeen]

Yes, as a parent with now two ADHD diagnosed kids (one Hyperactive, one Combined), it did bother me a little. But I think what the PP meant was the marginalization of developmentally normal, active kids as ADHD. But many parents face a stigma that their kid with ADHD is just bad, or needs discipline, or doesn't get enough exercise. It gets tiresome.

I get what was trying to be said, but I agree that we already face a stigma. While ADHD is overdiagnosed, it seems like every article about that overdiagnosis that comes out just increases the stigma for those of us dealing with the real thing.

I have a boy who was diagnosed with Inattentive Type ADHD. So not only is it the stigma of ADHD, but Inattentive type is more common in girls than boys. So I get a lot of people who insist that he "doesn't have ADHD" because he's not hyperactive or impulsive.

Anyway, I was worried about the things in this article with my boys. I don't know if they are really true or not though. I did very specifically choose a private Montessori early elementary for them and I do find that their school has a level field between the girls and boys. I can see the differences between them, but academically things seem even. Behaviorally, things also seem even. The article did allude to higher performing schools seeing fewer differences.

I think boys and girls are equally smart and capable. I also think that things are not set up in a developmentally appropriate way in our traditional school system. It might be that that affects a greater number of boys in a negative way, but I think it affects a certain percentage of girls negatively as well. Simple things like more downtime, daily PE, more recess, snack time could probably help even things out. Less emphasis on desktime and quiet for young elementary school kids. That could only help everyone...not just the boys. I imagine being able to relax a bit would make things easier on the teachers too.

[bisous]

I understood what Maestramommy said to mean something akin to what the radio host and author, Thom Hartman proposed in his hunter v. farmer hypothesis. (he wrote a book on it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_hypothesis



So I took what she was saying to mean that these are lingering traits.

I find his theory pretty fascinating--no way to really prove it, but it's interesting to think about.

As a mom of a non-NT kid, it resonates with me. My kiddo seems wired differently, and in a really interesting way.

I've heard this before. This does not apply to my kid with ADHD! If we were in a hunter-gatherer society my child would be dead now. I'm serious. I swear I spent the first four years of his life just keeping him alive! Don't get me wrong, DS has some wonderful skills and talents and I think ultimately he'll be fine in life. I don't feel negatively about his prospects in general at all even with his significant impairment from ADHD and also his type 1 diabetes. But I can't think of a single thing that is advantageous in his ADHD diagnosis! He manages to thrive despite his diagnosis and not because of it. I truly am happy for those of you who are able to see positive aspects to a diagnosis--I just don't in our personal situation.

How does this apply to the classroom setting? I think that the typical learning environment our kids are in IS difficult for my son but I the bigger picture about what is being talked about is the way the school is formatted for NT boys. I really don't know what can be done to help them achieve their potential. I'm glad that girls are doing better--I just want to see boys thrive as well!

[sste]

One of my top reasons for choosing my public school was that it has daily gym, two recesses daily, a special daily, and an informal policy that the younger elem. kids are not expected to sit for more than 20 minutes at a time. We were lucky in that we could choose, we were at a "move point" and were shopping a few different districts.

I think parent demand has to ramp up for these items. With so much focus on test scores and homework and early reading, schools are responding to parent (and state) demands. We need to start asking about and advocating for daily gym!!

For our school, I think it actually helped that it is a more diverse population. Basically, with hyperinvolved, highly educated parents, and kids that have done 2, often 3 in my area, years of pre-k you can skimp on gym and recess and basically harangue parents/kids with reports of minor "behavior" problems. With a more econ. diverse population, some without any pre-k, I think the teachers' and admins' day to day would be highly frustrating if they didn't provide dev. appropriate physical outlets.

[Philly Mom]

I have found this conversation to be interesting to read. I have two girls and they are too young for this to matter yet. I am not sure education, as it is today, and as it has been for a long time (although I think we had more recess/art/music than kids do today) helps either sex. Generally speaking, girls or kids who can sit still for a long time may do "better" in school because they are compliant and have longer attention spans, but what good is that for the real world. In the real world, those girls, now women, who had been taught that if you still quietly and do what you are told, you will be given a gold star, are not taking leadership positions. After working in three different law firms (two of which were part of Big Law), and in my jobs before I went to law school, I can guarantee that the women who did that were left behind. In 2008 when the economy fell, it was those well behaved women (and men) who were laid off at law firms because while they did good work, they spent so much time with their heads down doing work for others, they had not generated any of their own. Many of them lacked the creative thinking to be business owners of their own careers to create a safety net.

[daisysmom]

I have found this conversation to be interesting to read. I have two girls and they are too young for this to matter yet. I am not sure education, as it is today, and as it has been for a long time (although I think we had more recess/art/music than kids do today) helps either sex. Generally speaking, girls or kids who can sit still for a long time may do "better" in school because they are compliant and have longer attention spans, but what good is that for the real world. In the real world, those girls, now women, who had been taught that if you still quietly and do what you are told, you will be given a gold star, are not taking leadership positions. After working in three different law firms (two of which were part of Big Law), and in my jobs before I went to law school, I can guarantee that the women who did that were left behind. In 2008 when the economy fell, it was those well behaved women (and men) who were laid off at law firms because while they did good work, they spent so much time with their heads down doing work for others, they had not generated any of their own. Many of them lacked the creative thinking to be business owners of their own careers to create a safety net.

Agree on so many levels. I just have ine dd who is 7. Yes she can sit for hours on end.., she is a child who can lose herself ins book and tune out everything around her. But I don't want that for her. As her lawyer mother who has 20 years of orsctuce in an almost exclusively make dominated field at my level, I seek sn education for her that teaches her more than to keep her head down and obey. We also believe so strongly in physical fitness, sports and health. Fornthstbresson, we chose a private school that has mandatory team sports (no cut) for fall, winter and spring. We also have pe daily as well as walking the track after lunch. Having a school that focuses on Heath and movement was a huge thing for me. So I hear you. I know we are lucky in that we have one dd who has a very high iq (from her dad) and will not lack in book smarts. But we both value sn education that provides more than that.

[TxCat]

I have found this conversation to be interesting to read. I have two girls and they are too young for this to matter yet. I am not sure education, as it is today, and as it has been for a long time (although I think we had more recess/art/music than kids do today) helps either sex. Generally speaking, girls or kids who can sit still for a long time may do "better" in school because they are compliant and have longer attention spans, but what good is that for the real world. In the real world, those girls, now women, who had been taught that if you still quietly and do what you are told, you will be given a gold star, are not taking leadership positions. After working in three different law firms (two of which were part of Big Law), and in my jobs before I went to law school, I can guarantee that the women who did that were left behind. In 2008 when the economy fell, it was those well behaved women (and men) who were laid off at law firms because while they did good work, they spent so much time with their heads down doing work for others, they had not generated any of their own. Many of them lacked the creative thinking to be business owners of their own careers to create a safety net.

Very well-said and excellent points.