Latest post of the previous page:
Is everyone here comfortable with the idea that boys and girls should somehow be taught differently?Emma
Latest post of the previous page:
Is everyone here comfortable with the idea that boys and girls should somehow be taught differently?Not at all. I believe all schools should be co-educational.Emma Woolgatherer wrote:Is everyone here comfortable with the idea that boys and girls should somehow be taught differently?
Emma
Bravo, Loz! Well spoken. Yes, the problem is with the system that forces targets down the throats of teachers and students. Learning is supposed to be fun but it can't be when the pressure is on from all sides and for all involved. It's ridiculous to fire or downgrade a teacher because they couldn't meet standards. That makes teachers not only teach to the test but to focus almost exclusively on those students who can learn by rote and repetition while ignoring the gifts of creativity and other skills that different learners bring to the table.loz2286 wrote:...Teachers are set targets for performance. We are measured by them. Teachers are dismissed or downgraded for failing to meet targets. Don't blame them if they take the safe option and teach to the test.
It's not ideal. I'm lucky. I work in the independent sector where I am given the freedom to be eccentric. I'm allowed to think putside the box. I do try to do as much outdoor learning as possible. I seek to foster adventurous minds, independent thinkers and rounded young men. We do LOADS of sport and celebrate success wherever it happens.
So don't blame teachers. Blame the system that values the sausage factory processes of examinations and standards, rather than the "education" of rounded free-thinkers.
No, I'm not because I don't think it's about differentiating between the sexes, per se. People learn in different ways and styles and that's not something that's purely gender related, imo. I think it might have more to do with how brains are configured, generally speaking, possibly maturity levels, exposure to different life events/circumstances, etc. From my experience, there were boys who hated phys-ed, who were much more sensitive than you'd typically expect, they preferred reading. There were girls, like me, who couldn't stand the frilly-dress club. I wanted to hike and explore. I learn way better through experience. Gender stereotyping as a way of teaching really misses the boat and leaves some stranded.Emma Woolgatherer wrote:Is everyone here comfortable with the idea that boys and girls should somehow be taught differently?
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:Is everyone here comfortable with the idea that boys and girls should somehow be taught differently?
Emma
In my (admittedly limited) experience - I have a sister and two children of each sex - it seems rather self-evident that the different sexes learn differently, but.. I think that while there are differences, they seem quite minor compared to the similarities... whether that means they should be "taught differently".. I guess it depends how you define "differently", how different you're thinking of making things.Emma Woolgatherer wrote:Is everyone here comfortable with the idea that boys and girls should somehow be taught differently?
In what way are boys and girls different that is relevant to the way they should be taught? And are they different on average, or are all boys different from all girls in that respect?loz2286 wrote:Absolutely....because they ARE different. That is not to say taught different things, but taught in different styles.Emma Woolgatherer wrote:Is everyone here comfortable with the idea that boys and girls should somehow be taught differently?
What research is that? I've read fairly recently that there is some evidence that girls achieve higher grades in a single-sex school (see this Times article, for example; though note that it doesn't claim that the reason for this is that boys and girls have different learning styles), but I didn't think the evidence was so strong for boys. Previous studies have suggested that there is no significant difference in the achievement of girls or boys in single-sex as compared to co-educational schools. See, for example, "Achievement, Gender and the Single-Sex/Coed Debate", Richard Harker, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Volume 21, Issue 2, June 2000 , pp. 203[--][/--]18; "Science course participation and science achievement in single sex and co-educational schools", Peter Daly, Evaluation & Research in Education, Volume 9, Issue 2, 1995, pp. 91[--][/--]8; "Should the sexes be separated for secondary education [--][/--] comparisons of single-sex and co-educational schools?", Pamela Robinson and Alan Smithers, Research Papers in Education, Volume 14, Issue 1, March 1999, pp. 23[--][/--]49. This is from the abstract of the last-named paper:loz2286 wrote:This approach is based on considerable research that shows that children, boys in particular, do much better when taught in a single sex environment.
I went to a single-sex school, and if I'd had children I would not have sent them to single-sex schools.The publication of schools' examination results in England has reopened in sharper form the old debate about whether single-sex or co-educational schooling is better for secondary education. This paper considers both the claimed academic and social advantages.
Performance at GCSE and A level has been analysed for boys and girls separately in single-sex and co-educational schools using national data supplied by the Department for Education and Employment, OFSTED and the Independent Schools Information Service. School experiences and ease of adjustment to university have been explored through in-depth interviews with a sample of 100 students in their second term at university, balanced for sex and type of school.
There is enough in the evidence to see how the various claims have arisen, but they are nevertheless caricatures of a complex reality. The outstanding performance of the single-sex schools in the examination league tables has much more to do with academic selection, socioeconomic background and the standing of the school itself than with the segregation of the sexes. When, as far as possible, like is compared with like, the apparent academic differences between single-sex and co-educational schools largely disappear.
...Furthermore, nearly all those who had been to co-educational schools said they would also send their own children to co-educational schools, but only about a third of those who had been to single-sex schools said they would send their children to single-sex schools.
Yes, that's how I see it too.Marian wrote:Gender stereotyping as a way of teaching really misses the boat and leaves some stranded.
If you are in the 'independent sector', loz, does that not mean 'fee-paying'?loz2286 wrote:My evidence arises from recent discussions with senior school inspectors.
Anyway, it works for us. By the way we're non-selective.
I've always thought that educating children is the most difficult task in life. Nevertheless, parents are entrusted with this job without a degree! None is to blame, however. Mine is a special case in that I divorced and I was entrusted, by the tribunal, with the task of rising a boy that I took with me at 6 and is now 16. I relate with the boy and school teachers but also with parents of class mates. I could write pages about experiences lived along the way but, don't worry, I like to be very short.loz2286 wrote:Following the thread hi-jack I'll steer this back to the main topic.... Educating boys.
Exactly! Nurtured, not forced. There are a great many things I like about Sweden but how they treat people is probably at the top. I enjoyed watching the video. I wondered how the babies fared later in life with the stimulation and attention starting so early in life.lewist wrote: They should be nurtured, not forced. The Scandinavians could teach us a lot about early education and they do better in the International league tables than either England or Scotland. Raising the starting age for formal school and introducing a structured play curriculum in the kindergarten years would be a good start for boys and girls. There are aspects of the way we treat our four year olds that are simply abusive.
Having experienced an educational exchange in Norway, you'll not find me disagreing with this.They should be nurtured, not forced. The Scandinavians could teach us a lot about early education and they do better in the International league tables than either England or Scotland. Raising the starting age for formal school and introducing a structured play curriculum in the kindergarten years would be a good start for boys and girls. There are aspects of the way we treat our four year olds that are simply abusive.
I find that completely shocking. Is violence towards partners and animals also lauded?Marian wrote:I find that here, it's considered bad if you don't hit your children.
At my (cough) secondary modern we were divided by (perceived) intelligence, in each year there was an A class, a B class, and an R class, not sure if the R was for retarded, or why there wasn't a C class.Fia
My rational mind says educate them all together: genders, parental beliefs, physical and mental abilities, learning styles. But my heart thinks that some separation on the gender and mental abilities side can provide a more positive space for learning.
I liked it too. What appalls me is that some kids are so disadvantaged so early in life. But what annoys me is the idea that it is solely because of lack of money. When I was very young my family had very little money (I was surprised that my neighbours had furniturein their front room!) but had great parents. I'd love to see parenting skills taken more seriously.Fia wrote:The link was very interesting, thank you lewist. 30,000 kindergarten places in Stockholm in 10 years. That's impressive. And freeing the parents to engage in work, by providing more than a mere day care system, but socialisation, language and confidence skills. Education aimed at the wee ones needs. A win/win for society I reckon.
Hmmm... I'm not totally convinced. Too often 'qualifications' are just another expensive hurdle to leap through. My brother, a successful teacher, and something of a leftie, was refused teacher training because he was over-qualified (he has a D Phil.) and thus forced to teach in the private sector, as no state school would employ him. Training yes, life skills, yes (I'd like to make it easier for people to switch to teaching later in life), but 4+ years before teaching young and kindergarten kids? I'm not convinced, and think you are as likely to lose good teachers as create them.I was also particularly struck by the comment from one of the teachers that "each teacher has a second degree". Certainly for secondary teaching I'd like to think the norm would be a equivalent degree in the discipline, followed by a post-grad teaching qualification.
That's a good sentiment, but sadly it seems increasingly difficult to put into practice. Dunno what the answer is, but I doubt it's more paperwork....Someone (sorry, don't know who, it may have been anon) wisely said that it takes a village to raise a child. Family, friends, neighbours, teachers, elders, peer group and sometimes even bystanders all have an impact upon a child's growth...
Not that I have any devastating answers, but why should it be worse to put disruptive boys next to studious girls, than to put disruptive boys next to studious boys?Back on educating boys... for a while our local secondary school, backed up by some research, made troublesome boys sit next to studious girls in the hope that the boys may have some studiousness rubbed off The system was universally reviled by female pupils and their parents, and is thankfully no longer practised. .
Curiously, I'm the complete opposite. Hmmm... not sure what that means....My rational mind says educate them all together: genders, parental beliefs, physical and mental abilities, learning styles. But my heart thinks that some separation on the gender and mental abilities side can provide a more positive space for learning.
I haven't grown up, I've just grown out.....I find boys from the age of around 7 until they grow up (if they do ) completely incomprehensible
Life experience is very important since it opens up one's eyes to the reality of that job. Not sure what the requirements are for working with primary children in the UK but over here, it's a two year diploma program. They are expected to do co-op work (relevant work experience as part of the curriculum.)Fia wrote: I am mightily uncomfortable that 3 years after leaving school folk who have little life experience can be qualified to teach. My youngest currently wants to teach primary children, but I am encouraging her to do another degree or relevant work experience first. I'd be interested to hear others thoughts on this.
It is shocking that punishment is often the method used to control children but we live in a culture that values how fast you can get your food or how quickly you can get from point A to point B. There's a lot of lip service paid to stopping domestic violence but it still goes on although the laws have improved in that regard. In terms of cruelty to animals, they've only just instituted a severe fine for animal endangerment but like children, animals are often seen as property so people turn a blind eye to it, unless it is so shockingly severe that someone has died. Quite sick as far as I'm concerned. Maybe things have changed a bit since spent a lot of time with parents and young children but it sure doesn't seem like it to me.Fia wrote:I find that completely shocking. Is violence towards partners and animals also lauded?
Common sense would have told me to not put the studious girls and troublesome boys together. He'll just be a distraction to her and he's certainly not going to get studiousness through osmosis. I don't necessarily think that putting disruptive pupils next to studious ones is tenable unless the only difficulty is that the disruptive ones need a role model for being studious and are willing to learn.Fia wrote:Back on educating boys... for a while our local secondary school, backed up by some research, made troublesome boys sit next to studious girls in the hope that the boys may have some studiousness rubbed off The system was universally reviled by female pupils and their parents, and is thankfully no longer practised. I dunno about the rest of you but, having never been one or given birth to one, I find boys from the age of around 7 until they grow up (if they do ) completely incomprehensible
It's a tough call. Having dealt with the mental abilities side, I'd say that we need to find a solution that best suits the children involved. Call me an idealist Some children with different mental abilities can work along side their less effected peers and others need to be separated. Sometimes, the right environment is one that is completely separate, like a treatment center where education goes hand in hand with counselling etc.Fia wrote:My rational mind says educate them all together: genders, parental beliefs, physical and mental abilities, learning styles. But my heart thinks that some separation on the gender and mental abilities side can provide a more positive space for learning. Ergo, currently, I don't know
Um ... Isn't that ... a bit ... sexist?Fia wrote:I dunno about the rest of you but, having never been one or given birth to one, I find boys from the age of around 7 until they grow up (if they do ) completely incomprehensible
I think my heart and mind are pretty much united on this. I think schools should ideally be for all genders, parental beliefs, and, for the most part, abilities (though it may be that, especially given the limited resources currently available to mainstream schools, they may not always be able to teach some students with severe learning difficulties or disabilities effectively). I also think a wide range of learning styles should be used. Children can't all be neatly categorised into those who learn best by listening, or by watching and looking, or by reading and writing, or by acting and experimenting, or whatever. Most of us, I suspect, benefit from a mixture of learning styles, using all our senses. If some schools are failing boys by not using appropriate learning/teaching styles, chances are they're failing at least some of the girls, too. And vice versa.Fia wrote:My rational mind says educate them all together: genders, parental beliefs, physical and mental abilities, learning styles. But my heart thinks that some separation on the gender and mental abilities side can provide a more positive space for learning. Ergo, currently, I don't know
Couldn't agree more. It's compounded by the attitude Marian described:Nick wrote:I'd love to see parenting skills taken more seriously.
The cultures that feel it's ok for parents to reign violence upon children need to address this. But how does a society go about that?...they've only just instituted a severe fine for animal endangerment but like children, animals are often seen as property so people turn a blind eye to it, unless it is so shockingly severe that someone has died.
It's partly the same issue: good parenting engenders an awareness of others, that we are all different coloured crayons in the same box.Marian wrote:My biggest issue is the reaction of other people to this separation so that name-calling, put-downs, cruelty and taunting are often how the so-called 'normal' kids treat those who are different.
I asked them why they didn't do this and they said they needed to distance the disruptive boys from their audience/peer groups, who were other boys. So the girls suffered, as teenage girls do.Nick wrote:Not that I have any devastating answers, but why should it be worse to put disruptive boys next to studious girls, than to put disruptive boys next to studious boys?
Fia wrote:
I dunno about the rest of you but, having never been one or given birth to one, I find boys from the age of around 7 until they grow up (if they do ) completely incomprehensible
As I was speaking from my own lack of experience but occasional interaction with boys, what makes them tick as a group is to me completely incomprehensible. I can remember how it felt as a teenage girl to ride the hormones, to try and fit in by wearing the right clothes and make-up, and having enough information on subjects I had no interest in to be able to be accepted. I don't emotionally understand the boys obsessive humour about bodily functions, the physicality of their interactions, the grunt rather then the conversation...Emma Woolgatherer wrote:Um ... Isn't that ... a bit ... sexist?
In urban areas (here there is one secondary school, absolutely no choice unless you go to the private sector and have your child 3 hrs on a bus every day or board) there is more scope. If every school had to provide for every possible student (as our school has to do, bar severe difficulties) the available resources are even more stretched. I'm unconvinced our secondary school has done the best by my eldest, indeed she begged me frequently to change schools. She certainly would have been happier in a school with a different focus, which in a city would be feasible. So I'm still torn in the same way...Emma Woolgatherer wrote:I think schools should ideally be for all genders, parental beliefs, and, for the most part, abilities (though it may be that, especially given the limited resources currently available to mainstream schools, they may not always be able to teach some students with severe learning difficulties or disabilities effectively)
One of the most comprehensive studies into fairness in the UK shows how class, race and gender remain crucial factors in determining how British pupils succeed at school - and beyond