Do boys under perform because of no male elementary teachers?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Under performance of boys in educational settings is a troubling (and it appears) global trend in the developed world. When compared to their female peers, boys come up short in almost every subject matter and standardized test. I'm wondering if one part of this odd equation is determined by a deficit of male elementary and middle school teachers. From a purely anecdotal perspective, many females I've talked with initially feel more uncomfortable with a male teacher; perhaps the same is true for boys, which plays into the problem of teaching being associated with "women's work."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/aug/26/schools.uk


The government has defended the figures, saying they show the British educational system is still world class. Everyone outside Whitehall has been putting the boot in, pointing out that targets - counter-productive as they may be - have still not been met and that in some cases standards have even fallen. But whichever way you spin last week's GCSE and Sats results, you can't avoid one conclusion: whatever you may think of the girls' performance, the boys have generally done a whole lot worse.
At seven years old, boys were outperformed by 11 percentage points in reading and 16 percentage points in writing. At key stage 2 (age 11), girls increased their percentage point gap to a record 17 in the writing element of English, while at 14 boys are 13 points behind in both reading and writing.
http://www.educationsector.org/research/research_show.htm?doc_id=378705


If you've been paying attention to the education news lately, you know that American boys are in crisis. After decades spent worrying about how schools "shortchange girls,"1 the eyes of the nation's education commentariat are now fixed on how they shortchange boys. In 2006 alone, a Newsweek cover story, a major New Republic article, a long article in Esquire, a "Today" show segment, and numerous op-eds have informed the public that boys are falling behind girls in elementary and secondary school and are increasingly outnumbered on college campuses. A young man in Massachusetts filed a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, arguing that his high school's homework and community serv*ice requirements discriminate against boys.2 A growth industry of experts is advising educators and policymakers how to make schools more "boy friendly" in an effort to reverse this slide.

[Misanthrope]

I think it does have something to do with gender. Not the gender of the teachers but rather the female students in the class. When you have mostly heterosexual teenagers that are interested in dating piled into a small classroom, they are obviously going to be conscious of their actions.

From my high school experience, teenage girls are not interested in your history knowledge or your ability to do math problems. It isn't "cool" to be smart. Nowadays, students don't care about being a student, they just care about this sex obsessed culture.

[Coggeh]

I think it does have something to do with gender. Not the gender of the teachers but rather the female students in the class. When you have mostly heterosexual teenagers that are interested in dating piled into a small classroom, they are obviously going to be conscious of their actions.

From my high school experience, teenage girls are not interested in your history knowledge or your ability to do math problems. It isn't "cool" to be smart. Nowadays, students don't care about being a student, they just care about this sex obsessed culture.
In boys only schools the trend is basically the same . If anything having girls in your class would make a boy preform better as they don't want to look stupid and all that :rolleyes:.

I don't have any explanation for girls exceeding in school in comparison to boys . Maybe the OP is right

[eyedrop]

What I think is quite interesting is that 60 percent of university students are females while males continues to be the overwhelming majority in leadership positions in society. Effectively dispelling the myth that education is the most important thing to get to the top of society.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

This is partly because there is a strong anti learning culture amongst young men in schools.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

As a female, based on my own experience, and also based on the factoid about boys'-only schools Coggeh brought up, as well as the fact that the performance gap begins much earlier than the teenage years, I don't fully agree with the conclusion drawn by Wolves of Paris. However, I do believe Wolves of Paris hit the nail on the head inadvertently with this statement, speaking of boys:


It isn't "cool" to be smart.50 and 60 years ago, the media-pumped image of the ideal man was that of a sort of sophisticated intellectual, knowledgeable about current events in the world and politics and so on. There were very distinct "male topics" and "female topics". Trade policy was a male topic. Men were a female topic. The status of color TV's development was a male topic. Children were a female topic. Sporting events were a male topic. What dress to wear to a special event was a female topic. And so on and so on and so on. You get the idea: the men were supposed to be the intellectuals, while the women were supposed to be consumed by their domestic lives.

Then there came the women's lib. movement, to which the media response ultimately was, in part, to redefine masculinity. While the exact socially accepted idea of what a "real man" is and isn't differs from location to location, in an overall sense, it has come to be much more identified with this whole image of the muscle-bound, rough, tough kind of guy; the kind of guy who would rather lift weights or tackle somebody on the football field than get into an intelligent discussion about the state of the world. In other words, the social meaning of masculinity has been dumbed down. It's shifted from an emphasis on brains to an emphasis on brawn. The result is a whole cultural shift, with young boys being taught the new definition of masculinity every day by their TV sets and other media, perhaps by their parents as well, and by their peers who have grown up in the same culture, and then incorporating the resulting understanding of what is and isn't male behavior into their daily routine.

...Did that make sense?

[eyedrop]

...Did that make sense? It sorta did.

But it still doesn't explain the situation with boys underperforming as intelectualism isn't promoted much in young female culture either. It is maybe more compitable with a "cool" female, a the image of a "cool" male has more of an anti-school sentiments to it.

It should also be considered that "typical" female subjects (subjects females are encouraged to do well in) make up a larger percentage of your grades than typical male subjects. Here for example you have 6, or something, Norwegian grades while math only gives you one grade. So being good in languages pays of to a decent degree in your score sheet while maths doesn't.

[NecroCommie]

As a female, based on my own experience, and also based on the factoid about boys'-only schools Coggeh brought up, as well as the fact that the performance gap begins much earlier than the teenage years, I don't fully agree with the conclusion drawn by Wolves of Paris. However, I do believe Wolves of Paris hit the nail on the head inadvertently with this statement, speaking of boys:

50 and 60 years ago, the media-pumped image of the ideal man was that of a sort of sophisticated intellectual, knowledgeable about current events in the world and politics and so on. There were very distinct "male topics" and "female topics". Trade policy was a male topic. Men were a female topic. The status of color TV's development was a male topic. Children were a female topic. Sporting events were a male topic. What dress to wear to a special event was a female topic. And so on and so on and so on. You get the idea: the men were supposed to be the intellectuals, while the women were supposed to be consumed by their domestic lives.

Then there came the women's lib. movement, to which the media response ultimately was, in part, to redefine masculinity. While the exact socially accepted idea of what a "real man" is and isn't differs from location to location, in an overall sense, it has come to be much more identified with this whole image of the muscle-bound, rough, tough kind of guy; the kind of guy who would rather lift weights or tackle somebody on the football field than get into an intelligent discussion about the state of the world. In other words, the social meaning of masculinity has been dumbed down. It's shifted from an emphasis on brains to an emphasis on brawn. The result is a whole cultural shift, with young boys being taught the new definition of masculinity every day by their TV sets and other media, perhaps by their parents as well, and by their peers who have grown up in the same culture, and then incorporating the resulting understanding of what is and isn't male behavior into their daily routine.

...Did that make sense?
This!

Children are extremely prone to suggestion, so it does not exactly surprise that young boys wuld see learning as "uncool", since already in their childrens programs the alpha males are the ones who a)have muscles, ad b) are keen on using them.

Also, I think that the OP is wrong. I had a male teacher in elementary school, and whereas our class's boys scored pretty good, we continued to score good even when our teacher changed to a woman one. The scores plummeted only when our classes were mixed, and our social structure were introduced with these so called "cool" boys.

In a more general word though, all gender roles are reactionary to the core. Where as before they discouraged women to be intelligent, they now frown upon intelligent men. A good communist never does anything only because it is "manly" or "feminine". I'd think anything would need a better reason than that.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I would like to point out there is often a its cool to be thick as shit culture amongst females but it tends to apply only in social settings rather then academic ones.

[blake 3:17]

I do think there are problems with way school institutions are gendered. Part of the problem is that the overwhelming number of caregivers and teachers during children's early years are women. Gendered divisions within both the family and the education system tend to replicate certain gender injustices. There are different theories on this, but I think it safe to say having more gender equity in early schooling would do better for all.


This is partly because there is a strong anti learning culture amongst young men in schools. A lot of school work is extremely dull. There are things that need to be learnt but are taught in the dullest ways possible. Many of the ways boys and young men learn to resist this is through anti-intellectualism.


What I think is quite interesting is that 60 percent of university students are females while males continues to be the overwhelming majority in leadership positions in society. It's very curious. A lot of gender roles are being pretty constantly redefined, but... It seems that women are put under a special scrutiny for top leadership positions.

A female friend called the Obama v Clinton fight very early. She claimed people feel more comfortable with almost any man over the most qualified woman any day.

[Orange Juche]

I would like to point out there is often a its cool to be thick as shit culture amongst females but it tends to apply only in social settings rather then academic ones.

You mean like how there is a notable tendency for girls to go for assholes?

[NecroCommie]

You mean like how there is a notable tendency for girls to go for assholes?
No, as in it is not socially normal for girls to appear smarter than their spouses. (regardless the fact that they often are)

[NecroCommie]

A lot of school work is extremely dull. There are things that need to be learnt but are taught in the dullest ways possible. Many of the ways boys and young men learn to resist this is through anti-intellectualism.
Denmark and Finland both have a very real and at least amongst boys popular chance of vocational education. In neither case does it decrease the rampant male anti-intellectualism. I still think we are talking mainly about a cultural phenomenon.

A female friend called the Obama v Clinton fight very early. She claimed people feel more comfortable with almost any man over the most qualified woman any day.
An unfortunate and reactionary cultural truth. In this regard western nations are barely at all better when compared with the "sexist" third world.

...When we are talking about leadership positions that is.

[Axle]

I think boys underperform because so many of them think it isn't cool to learn, or like school, or get good grades.

I know this from personal experience...me and just about all of my high school buddies were this way and about half of us, including myself, barely graduated high school because of it.

We're now in our early twenties and most of us are still feeling the impact of those dumbass decisions.

We live in a country that praises anti-intellectualism, and looks down upon acedemic achievements, obviously.

[MaoTseHelen]

I think boys underperform because so many of them think it isn't cool to learn, or like school, or get good grades.

Pretty much. My three most helpful teachers, in hindsight, were 2 females and a male. There wasn't any special notice paid to gender, and they knew their stuff.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

It could be that male and female students, when they are asked to take tests, are at different levels of physical and mental maturity. And on average, when all other factors are equal, male students achieve lower results.

So, maybe it is brain development. It could be good to look at any adult education to see if there is a similar trend.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It could be that male and female students, when they are asked to take tests, are at different levels of physical and mental maturity. And on average, when all other factors are equal, male students achieve lower results.

So, maybe it is brain development. It could be good to look at any adult education to see if there is a similar trend.

Perhaps, but there is no evidence that confidently says girls mature (mentally) at a faster pace than boys. There have been a lot of assertions that girls also develop critical thinking faster, while boys develop common sense first, but again, no cookie. It all seems to be based on social etiquette rather than any concrete evidence. Both genders of course suffer from their stereotypes; worse still, individuals conform to these stereotypes, probably as a result of their early childhood.


I think boys underperform because so many of them think it isn't cool to learn, or like school, or get good grades.Perhaps, but that seems as if it's an effect and not a direct cause. When girls are reared to be "eloquent," does this give them an advantage as compared to "rough" boy mantra?

[KC]

I think it has a lot more to do with the structure of school curriculums than with the gender of teachers.

[blake 3:17]

I think it has a lot more to do with the structure of school curriculums than with the gender of teachers.

The politics of curriculum are a freaking huge political issue. In education systems I know something about they've been a) conservatized and/or b) neo-liberalized. Gender roles are one of the primary lessons of education systems. Having men in distant authority relationships in schools and educational systems, while women execute the hands on front line stuff teaches profound lessons about what it means to be a boy, a girl, or how the whole world operates.

Authority and discipline are at the heart of the school system. How they're managed varies greatly in how children are treated -- as dupes or annoying problems, as dangerous/criminal or a little neurotic, as pets or pests.

Curriculums need to be changed -- the question is how, who gets a say, and how it is executed. It can be totally top down or make allowances for local differences. Keeping men in administrative roles with women doing the dirty work just perpetuates basic injustices.

One of my deepest wishes is that more men involve themselves in the nitty gritty of educating and caring for children and young people.

(You can probably tell I'm not the least impassioned on this issue....)

[Vargha Poralli]

Adding more to the point of KC it also the social pressure that is put on the Boy students especially from a lower middle class backgrounds.

This is more of a personal observation on the society I live in. Here whether they like it or not boys are under a lot of pressure to gain good marks - which is essential to get seat in a good college(without paying much money) which translates in to landing in a decent job. The culture developed in our school systems essentially treat adolescent students just like machines. Each and every school and college is measured by parents by how much pass percentage each school shows and also the number of people scoring 100% in key subjects(Maths,Physics and Chemistry). School hours will go from minum of 10 hours to maximum of 14 hours in the name of extra coaching, Special tests and intensive tuitioning.

This aspects makes studenst alienated much which leads to the underperformance. Added the social pressure boys have - they are getting trained to be bread winners they are the ones who get alienataed the most by this process which leads to poor performance in exams.

Girls in India does not suffer much as boys mainly because girls are not pressured to be the bread winners. Which gives them a lot of relaxation both in schools and homes which they utilise to expand their skills,knowledge and their grades.

Ironically all the school training goes to a waste when they in the adulthood. Since girls are not intended to b bread winners they are not let to study in higher studies which is entirely left to the boys. The number drop further more when it comes to workplace.

I know a lot of Girls of my school days have been married and are left just to be home makers instead of pursuiing a career in the field they have talents on. Even many of my women collegues once they are about to be married/give birth to a child would leave the working status for ever to "take care of family".:crying:

The companies also prefer that way here as it saves them a lot of money on appraisals,promotions and effective method to keep the labour divided.


Sexism at its worst.

[DesertShark]

Does the under performance of boys only exist when their scores are compared to girls? Or is there a trend of boys performances decreasing over time? In the old days teaching in the pre-college levels was thought of as a female only profession and I don't believe this trend was observed then.

If the former is the case, perhaps the fact that girls are beginning to be treated equally in the classroom or their education is no longer being overlooked or they are being encouraged to do well in school is enough to bring their learning and ability in school up. What if it turns out that on an equal playing field girls are smarter then boys?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Does the under performance of boys only exist when their scores are compared to girls? Or is there a trend of boys performances decreasing over time? In the old days teaching in the pre-college levels was thought of as a female only profession and I don't believe this trend was observed then.

If the former is the case, perhaps the fact that girls are beginning to be treated equally in the classroom or their education is no longer being overlooked or they are being encouraged to do well in school is enough to bring their learning and ability in school up. What if it turns out that on an equal playing field girls are smarter then boys?

They aren't. Plenty of literature has emerged recently ("The War Against Boys" being the most alarmist of them all) showing how reforms to education have neglected to account for male achievement out of fear that anything which might address boys will be taken as a hostile towards girls' education. Let's not play the sexist card in reverse. One could say boys are inherently smarter at math and science using that very same logic, but we shouldn't go down a "this gender is more intelligent" route.

I ran across an interesting article the other day that has a genetic outlook on why mental retardation and excessive intelligence are more often found in men whereas women tend to have a lower standard deviation. Something to ponder: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4355355.stm

[DesertShark]

They aren't. Plenty of literature has emerged recently ("The War Against Boys" being the most alarmist of them all) showing how reforms to education have neglected to account for male achievement out of fear that anything which might address boys will be taken as a hostile towards girls' education. Let's not play the sexist card in reverse. One could say boys are inherently smarter at math and science using that very same logic, but we shouldn't go down a "this gender is more intelligent" route.

I ran across an interesting article the other day that has a genetic outlook on why mental retardation and excessive intelligence are more often found in men whereas women tend to have a lower standard deviation. Something to ponder: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4355355.stm

I wasn't trying to play any card, I was trying to find out the following:

Does the under performance of boys only exist when their scores are compared to girls? Or is there a trend of boys performances decreasing over time? In the old days teaching in the pre-college levels was thought of as a female only profession and I don't believe this trend was observed then.
Also, I do not believe you original claim:

Under performance of boys in educational settings is a troubling (and it appears) global trend in the developed world. When compared to their female peers, boys come up short in almost every subject matter and standardized test. I'm wondering if one part of this odd equation is determined by a deficit of male elementary and middle school teachers.
Is a coherent argument because for many many years elementary school teachers were only females because they viewed it as one of the few jobs suitable for women. The number of male elementary school teachers has actually been on the rise over the last 20 years, so this would not explain your claim. Especially when you consider the time when the only job for a single woman was an elementary school teacher, this was the same time when only men were allowed to attend higher education institutions or very few women attended. [Women did not have access to higher education before 1848. By 1890, 70% of all women in college were enrolled in coeducational colleges. This is not to say that women in college were a significant part of the population. In 1870 only .7% of the female population went to college. This percentage rose slowly, by 1900 the rate was 2.8% and it was only 7.6% by 1920. from http://www.northnet.org/stlawrenceaauw/college.htm]
Also, in the 1980s, there were more women teaching then men and this trend of boys performing worse then their female peers wasn't present. [its in the Women at Work section http://www.wic.org/misc/history.htm "In contrast, the teaching profession was a large field of employment for women. In the late 1980s more than twice as many women as men taught in elementary and high schools. In higher education, however, women held only about one third of the teaching positions, concentrated in such fields as education, social service, home economics, nursing, and library science. A small proportion of women college and university teachers were in the physical sciences, engineering, agriculture, and law."]

Also I don't see how you can make the claim:

One could say boys are inherently smarter at math and science using that very same logic, but we shouldn't go down a "this gender is more intelligent" route.
Is the basis for this claim the fact that there are more men in professional careers in math & science? My statement that you were responding to had the pretense that all things were equal. There's still a lot of inequality within higher education and professional jobs that would not make this claim possible.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

There's still a lot of inequality within higher education and professional jobs that would not make this claim possible.That inequality mostly rests on the fact women don't pursue said jobs due to cultural factors that are beyond any institution's control. Most applications to engineering, mathematics, law, medical, and science departments are done by males. You can't blame higher education for this issue when the problem rests earlier on - especially since these same institutions are probably the most progressive work places you'll come across. Colleges aren't going to dumb down their programs by having a 50/50 pool when 200 men and 10 women are applying, nor should they. If a male is more qualified, they have every right to select that candidate.

However, my statement was in reference to performance of females in said programs, not necessarily enrollment.

And in actuality the number of male elementary teachers has been on the decline: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2007/12/03/Number-of-male-teachers-on-the-decline/UPI-18101196704880/


The NEA says the pool of male elementary teachers has been on the decline since 1981 when it reached an all-time high of about 19 percent.What needs to be addressed are the causes of such deficits in female applications (as related to higher education) and male applications (as related to lower education). I'm not calling for an "affirmative action" program in either example. However I don't think it's absurd to argue female teachers, with some exceptions, have a hard time relating to boy students.

[DesertShark]

Does the under performance of boys only exist when their scores are compared to girls? Or is there a trend of boys performances decreasing over time?

[jake williams]

Frankly I'd throw all this in with all the nonsense about how our new matriarchal society is oppressing men. It's practically the opposite. Most of what is in this thread is borderline nonsensical. You can explain most of the rising performance gap with two really simple (and really obvious) facts: schools reward conformity, and females more than males are socialized to conform. The problem isn't, woe, men are oppressed; the problems are that a) women are oppressed and in the process are made passive and more comfortable with their oppression and b) schools are shitty and oppressive.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Frankly I'd throw all this in with all the nonsense about how our new matriarchal society is oppressing men. It's practically the opposite. Most of what is in this thread is borderline nonsensical. You can explain most of the rising performance gap with two really simple (and really obvious) facts: schools reward conformity, and females more than males are socialized to conform. The problem isn't, woe, men are oppressed; the problems are that a) women are oppressed and in the process are made passive and more comfortable with their oppression and b) schools are shitty and oppressive.

And your dismissive behavior is exactly why boys will continuously be forgotten amidst all talk of educational reform. Refusing to acknowledge the weight of evidence before you simply because it doesn't conform to preconceived notions about men always having an advantage regardless of how sexism negatively impacts more than women is as dangerous as anything else.

Your post is a perfect illustration of how any remark that wants to address boys will suddenly be taken out of context as an attack on girls. Congratulations on using children as political tools. "Conformity" must now be a synonym for pursuit of high grades. What is non-conformity? The violence and carelessness bestowed onto young boys as acceptable? Yeah, god forbid women aren't bred for that.

On a related note, most of the research conducted on this subject has been done by women - feminists at that - so I have to wonder what straws you're trying to grasp for by criticizing the thread as an appeal to matriarchal oppression perceived by men.

[jake williams]

And your dismissive behavior is exactly why boys will continuously be forgotten amidst all talk of educational reform. Refusing to acknowledge the weight of evidence before you simply because it doesn't conform to preconceived notions about men always having an advantage regardless of how sexism negatively impacts more than women is as dangerous as anything else.

Your post is a perfect illustration of how any remark that wants to address boys will suddenly be taken out of context as an attack on girls. Congratulations on using children as political tools. "Conformity" must now be a synonym for pursuit of high grades. What is non-conformity? The violence and carelessness bestowed onto young boys as acceptable? Yeah, god forbid women aren't bred for that.

On a related note, most of the research conducted on this subject has been done by women - feminists at that - so I have to wonder what straws you're trying to grasp for by criticizing the thread as an appeal to matriarchal oppression perceived by men.

Well it helps that I already dismiss a lot of "feminists" as essentialist anti-feminists. At any rate, if you think obeying every order and injunction of capitalist state schools - explicitly and openly designed as instruments of capitalist state control with the express purpose of not just educating but disciplining and indoctrinating children to be obedient workers, if you think that's a good thing to do - than I don't have a lot of time for you.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

explicitly and openly designed as instruments of capitalist state control with the express purpose of not just educating but disciplining and indoctrinating children to be obedient workers, if you think that's a good thing to do - than I don't have a lot of time for you.No, but trying to draw a casual relationship between excellent academic performance and the socialization aspect (initiated mostly by district and government level administrators) is something else. It's not as if boys are consciously aware of how they are being reared into the system.

[jake williams]

No, but trying to draw a casual relationship between excellent academic performance and the socialization aspect (initiated mostly by district and government level administrators) is something else. It's not as if boys are consciously aware of how they are being reared into the system.

Would you be able to explain a little more? I'm honestly not sure what you mean.

[blake 3:17]

Toronto board pushes for 'boy-friendly' school

Josh Wingro ve and Anthony Reinhart
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2009 7:00PM EDT Last updated on Thursday, Oct. 22, 2009 11:39PM EDT


Boys left behind by Toronto's public schools are about to feel a firm force pulling them forward: the strong hand of Chris Spence, the Toronto District School Board's new education director, who is calling for an all-male school and more “boy-friendly” classrooms to address male underachievement.

It's a bold step that's considered a first in the province. All-boys programs are typically found today in private schools and in the Catholic system, including Toronto's. A handful of public schools across Canada offer single-sex classes.
If adopted, however, Dr. Spence's Male Leadership Academy would be Toronto's only single-sex public elementary school.

Boys' disengagement at school not only leads to poor grades and unproductive lives, but also can lead to the kind of violence Toronto schools have struggled to control in recent years, Dr. Spence told reporters before presenting a sweeping vision document, his first since becoming director this year, to the board's planning and priorities committee last night.

“The real objective is to cast a critical eye on how we reach and teach our boys,” said Dr. Spence, whose 2008 book, The Joys of Teaching Boys , makes the case that boys learn differently from girls and have suffered under a “unisex model for child rearing and teaching.”

In Toronto public schools last year, boys were 3.5 times more likely to be suspended. They underperform compared with girls regardless of age, socioeconomic class or ethnicity, and are more likely to need learning support programs.

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/toronto-board-pushes-for-boy-friendly-school/article1331322/

[TC]

How did someone as sexist as genecosta get into the CC?

[gorillafuck]

What if it turns out that on an equal playing field girls are smarter then boys?
Wouldn't be astonishing, but I have trouble believing that it's as simple as that. I wouldn't rule out that boys and girls often have different ways of learning and are at different levels of their mental development when they go to school.

[black magick hustla]

dont boys do better in math though. which is were the money is most of the time

[fidzboi]

The original claim has been well refuted by DesertShark, and whilst I really like what Red Dragon Rider had to say and what others have said about the anti-intellectual culture of boys and teenagers, I think a few important points have been overlooked here. Firstly, girls do better because they are more diligent, study harder and behave better, but as jammoe has pointed out these are not necessarily positive attributes.

Girls are taught they should be seen and not heard, and inadvertently I think this leads to them being better students than boys, who are encouraged, perhaps expected, to be boisterous and naughty. A naughty boy is often 'Jack the Lad', whatever term describes a naughty girl no doubt has the same connotations of gender superiority found with wizards and witches, bachelors and spinsters, and so on.

This has another side of course, in that wee see men are, overall, more confident about assuming leadership positions. Leadership is the task of the 'strong', the 'bold', the 'boisterous', and shy little Sally is never going to see herself as those things no matter how many A's she gets.

But there's more to this I think, and it revolves around some of the points made about the changing male culture, the shift from the traditional, and the affects of the feminist movement and the defeats of the workers' movements.

We have a generation of young men who are entering a world were most 'good' working class jobs are heavily populated by women and often seen as women's work, this is coupled with the increase in absent fatherhood and useless fatherhood, which leaves most young men with little in terms of positive male role models. There aren't as many working class men around these days who are skilled workers' as well as being self educated.

The attack on the working class in Britain, and worldwide, during the 80's, destroyed working class communities and the male dominated industrial jobs. So the fathers of many young boys are now pretty defeated, despondent examples of men. Working class men have little to be proud of, and I think this passes on to their sons. The sons in turn do not see becoming skilled and educated as being important, so we see a rise in 'jock culture' which is perceived as one of the better routes a working class lad can take in order to climb the class ladder. Every young boy wants to be David Beckham...

Conversely, whilst the destruction of working class communities also affected women negatively, the successes of the feminist movement has created a generation of mothers who have these 'good' working class jobs, and who instil in their daughters the idea that doing well at school, getting some A levels and all that stuff, will lead to them having a decent standard of living.

Working women are strong, independent, something to aspire to be, something that will make you study. Your drunken bastard of a dad, with his three families and shitty job, is not. And within the confines of this world and with the way it treats gender, boys will look for male role models and girls will look for female ones. That perhaps may never change, we may always have a disposition towards wanting to be like people who have the same sex as us.

There are quite possibly some differences between the 'male' and 'female' brain, but I think social conditioning plays a far bigger role and I don't think many on here would disagree. And I don't think focusing on the issue itself is a remedy, the issue is just a reflection of greater forces at play.

Ultimately we all want massive social transformation, but if we were to pursue a position in the here and now I think it would be unwise to focus on this as merely a schooling issue which can be fixed by a different curriculum. Instead, better paid jobs and the destruction of gender stereotypes would likely see boys doing better at school, but as been pointed out conforming is not necessarily a positive thing.

The situation is ultimately a reflection of the world we live in, but given that the kind of 'education' we wish to provide has nothing to do with school, what sex does better matters little. Whether he got a C and she got an A, is simply not important with regards developing a revolutionary outlook. Though I suppose you could argue, with some authority, that naughty kids are more likely to be interested in ideas that attack authority, I certainly was. :closedeyes:

As for the reasons why middle and upper class boys do worse, if they do, I don't know and don't really care...

[Schrödinger's Cat]

How did someone as sexist as genecosta get into the CC?

TC, you labeling anyone else a sexist is pure entertainment.

I'll try addressing actual responses later on when I have time. Some very insightful thoughts.

[DesertShark]

I don't understand the need for males to have male role models and females to have female role models. Can't a good role model for a male be his single working mother? Or for a female her working class father? The qualities that make a person a positive influence, a good role model, etc. transcend any sexual, racial, economic, ethnic, or whatever other differences you want to point to out boundaries. Yes, there are instances when I identify with women more then men, but those are issues that men have no possible conception of (giving birth, menstruation, etc.) or have a basic understanding of without actually experiencing it (sexual discrimination, media portrayal of women, etc.). But most of the time I identify with another individual solely on the fact that we are individuals. Which is why as a white female, I am able to look to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a role model because the qualities that I admire in him are capable of being present in anyone. If you teach children that a person is a person regardless of their appearance, gender, orientation, whatever then the quality of their character, how they treat strangers, what they have done to succeed in life show through. Its when people start believing that certain jobs are "only for women" or "only for men" or "only for whites" etc. that the problem even arises where you need to look for a role model similar to you in superficial ways. It is the quality of the individual that make them a role model, not their gender, skin color, etc.

"The qualities you like or dislike in others, you can only recognize because they are qualities within yourself."