Are boys needs being met in school?
Categories: Kids 5-7, Kids 8-11, Education
Today was the first day of school for my district. The kids came tumbling down the hall and into my classroom, grinning and shy and eager..
As I watched take over the pristine room---looking for their cubbies and their desks, and reading directions together for the morning task---I was struck, as I am every year, by how differently the boys and the girls approach learning and being in school.
In general, the boys in my room have a thirst for movement---their bodies do not want to be still. They want to be touching and exploring and climbing and rolling and wiggling. They are great with spatial problem solving; but are challenged by multi-step directions.
Before I was a mother, I was convinced that gender stereotypes were exactly that: stereotypes brought about by cultural expectations. But then I had a boy, and despite my very best efforts at gender neutrality (a yellow room, offering him a doll along with his trucks, and a kitchen along with his parking garage) my son has become very much a boy in all the typical boyish ways.
Which prompted me to wonder---if young boys are inherently boyish in the ways that they seem to be (active and in need of movement and a multi-modal approach to learning) how are our classrooms providing for their needs? The current standards driven curriculum that is a result of No Child Left Behind, has forced many teachers to narrow their focus, leaving behind some of the breadth and variety in their curriculum that accommodated for active learners.
For the first time in our history, more girls are enrolled in college. Yet boys, while they continue to generally do well at the things they've been stereotyped to be good at (math, science, etc.) are not making the vast academic gains that girls seem to be making.
Which begs the question-how has education changed? And how are boys needs being met or not met within the classroom environment?
Do you have a son in elementary school? If so, I would be very interested to hear how he his classroom environment supports-or doesn't support his learning.
Recent Posts
- Teen Birth Rates Increase in 26 States (1/08/2009)
- Big Butts a Sign of Good Health! (1/08/2009)
- Supergirl - Britain's Strongest Girl Can Lift 375 Pounds (1/08/2009)
- Resale Shops May Be Hit By New Federal Law (1/08/2009)
- Playground News - Girls are Less Active Than Boys (1/08/2009)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Sabrina 8-28-2008 @ 9:52AM
Although neither of my children are in elementary school right now (my oldest is in her second year of PreK, and a very active little girl), I have some opinions on active learners in the current school environment.
I really feel that the environment fostered in a lot of schools right now is influenced by the state and national testing that kids are taking to gather data for No Child Left Behind. Teachers are having to cram more information in, and do it earlier, just to keep up. Because of all this, kids are expected to sit longer and do book work longer. Kids, especially very energetic ones, were not made for sitting in a chair reading from a book, doing workbook exercises for the length of time they're being made to do so now. Kids need to run, they need hands-on learning. They need teachers that have the freedom not to "teach for the test", but to teach for lifelong learning.. They need to be able to act out stories, to do messy math and science experiments, to get outside and RUN at recess. The reason so many kids are labeled "distraction in classroom setting" and "possible ADD or ADHD" now than ever before is because of unrealistic expectations. Some kids just cannot sit that long. And yes, ADD and ADHD are real issues and need real attention, but I know that all the kids being medicated for these issues do not really need that medication. Some of them just need to be allowed to let off steam through physical activities and hands-on learning. Unfortunately the educational system isn't set up for them and their learning styles right now. It's frustrating to know that my very bouncy-trouncy energetic little girl will probably be labeled a distraction at some time in her life. She just can't sit still, like so many boys you've mentioned.
Reply
chaser 8-28-2008 @ 11:49AM
I know all to well about the ADD/ADHD. My son was in 2nd last yr and he is the kind on child that wants to do thing and not sit all day, so the school said he has ADD, so after paying out of my pocket for 2 docs and 1 spec. they all came back saying NO! And we should look into the teachers way of teaching. So we did and took him to his new school that is trying to do the teaching alittle different and it worked for him. He gets to do the experiments and the things kids love and help them learn. At his old school they had cut out the experiments, had PE once a week and a total of 15 play time outside. Kids (boys or girls need to burn off some of their steam and get up!
mamaloo 8-28-2008 @ 9:52AM
Since my son is still in kindergarten, the programme is still much more active than the older grades which require students to be far more desk bound. It'll be interesting to see how his education needs are met in each succeeding year. I wonder what changes will happen in SK this year?
Reply
ame s 8-28-2008 @ 11:28AM
I don't have a son, but many of my friends do.
My younger daughter's elementary school has reduced P.E. to 50 minutes twice a week. No recess on the other 3 days. Moms of boys at our school say this is much harder on their sons than their daughters.
Reply
Jenni 8-28-2008 @ 11:30AM
The schools (preschool on up) are very muched geared for the typical "girl". Boys, who are by nature more active, are quickly deemed to be "trouble" because they can't (NOT WON'T) sit for longer periods of time.
I have run into too many teachers (as a teacher myself) who talk about how "well behaved" some children are. "They follow directions, blah, blah, blah." I've learned to read into that: "They are my little puppets."
When I go into a classroom and observe the "trouble" children, I notice the same thing: the "trouble" isn't with the child, but the teachers. (This isn't 100% of the time, but it is about 90% of the time). Once I can get a teacher to understand this, they take a much different approach and it's amazing how fast the behavior turns around.
I know there is a lot of things that need to get crammed into these small brains; but there are creative, active ways to do this. It doesn't all have to be sitting at a desk.
I challenge teachers to become "that teacher"; the one that children will grow up and say, "She (or He) really understood me and what I needed. She (or He) was the best!" You get to be that teacher by pushing the line and being different than all the rest. Be a child yourself! You try sitting for these long extended hours bored out of your mind while teachers cram information into your brain. We don't ask adults to do half of what we ask the children to do.
Reply
Karen 8-28-2008 @ 2:23PM
I am not currently teaching, but I am substituting in both elementary and middle school classrooms. I am also volunteering in these schools many hours a week. I am in a lot of classrooms and get to witness many different teaching styles.
I can tell you that it is not necessary to sit children down and have a pencil driven curriculum in order for children to pass standardized tests.
Good teachers use a variety of teaching styles and methods, they incorporate creative learning, manipulatives, etc. and they use these methods to teach the information children are tested on.
If a teacher tells you they have to teach to the test as an excuse for bad teaching, they need to be called on it.
The testing measures what the child should have learned. It does not dictate HOW they learn. It is up to the teacher to design a learning environment that works for all children.
Reply
Jenni 8-28-2008 @ 10:55PM
"The testing measures what the child should have learned. It does not dictate HOW they learn. It is up to the teacher to design a learning environment that works for all children"
I definitely didn't say it better than that; I love this that you wrote; it's exactly write. They need to be creative. So what they took art out of the curriculum, it doesn't mean they can't learn literacy through art!
wanderinglady 8-28-2008 @ 3:05PM
As far as I know, the classroom environment is the same now as well, forever. The boys the ancient Greeks taught had to sit down and listen, and respond when called upon. Same for one-room schoolhouses on the prairie in the 1800's. In fact, until relatively recently in human history, boys were the only ones to benefit from schooling (and in some places, it's that way now). I don't understand what the difference is now. Maybe someone who knows more about teaching methods or child development can tell me.
Reply
emjaybee 8-28-2008 @ 6:13PM
I don't think the gender of the kids is really what we should focus on; even *if* girls cope better with sitting still for some mysterious genetic reason (I don't agree, but that's a whole nother discussion) movement and play is good for *all* kids, so if there isn't enough, it's not because of some dark conspiracy against boys.
Girls have made gains because they're catching up--boys were already getting a large amount of attention. For years, at about middle school, girl's achievements would bottom out when social pressures that focused on datability instead of achievement really start to squeeze them. Things have improved, a little, so that girls can be allowed to achieve without worrying that they need to hurry up and find mates. That's a good thing--why aren't we excited that girls are doing so well?? Why does "girls doing well" somehow mean "boys are being hurt"? That doesn't pass the smell test, for me.
I have a boy, by the way, but I don't think there is a "boy crisis." I think NCLB is flawed, and that if we put half as much funding and attention into education as into, say, corporate handouts in Congress, we'd be able to improve things for everyone. If boys are having a hard time, chances are it's due to poor funding and lack of resources and talent, not because teachers "like girls more" or some sort of nonsense like that.
And the studies I've seen on this very issue, by the way, show the biggest achievement gaps between kids in poor districts and those in rich ones...much bigger gaps than boys vs. girls.
Reply