The new disadvantaged: white male students

[nerdanel]

The United States Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights has received a complaint alleging - you guessed it! - discrimination against boys. (I assume that all present are familiar with the American education system's centuries-long history of discrimination against men.) The complaint has been filed in the name of a 17-year old son of a white male Boston lawyer, Doug Anglin (GPA 2.880).

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... bias_suit/

Before we leap to our feet in outrage at the wrongs perpetrated against these downtrodden Victims of Oppression, we pause to consider the egregious discrimination that they daily face. Mr. Anglin alleges that he faces the following hostile circumstances at his Massachusetts high school:

- The school system establishes a philosophy from the elementary level that requires students to "sit down, follow orders, and listen to what [teachers] say" in order to do well and get good grades.

- Teachers have not sufficiently altered their attitudes towards boys by "look[ing] past boys' poor work habits or rule-breaking" in order to encourage them academically.

- Girls face fewer restrictions from teachers, like being able to wander the hallways without passes. (As best as I can tell from this article, this means that girls are requested to present a hall pass less often than are boys, anecdotally speaking, i.e. according to one female student.)

- Girls are "rewarded for abiding by the rules, while boys' more rebellious ways are punished."

- 64 percent of the teachers are women and 36 percent of the teachers are men.*

- Boys are surrounded in honors and Advanced Placement classes with female students.*

How can we right these grievous wrongs, you might ask? Mr. Anglin is at the ready with just solutions:

- Schools should give academic credit to students who play sports.

- Students should be allowed to take classes pass/fail to "encourage more boys to enroll in advanced classes without risking their grade point average."

- Schools should abolish community service requirements because - no, wait for it! - they are "another burden that will just set off resistance from boys, who may skip it and fail to graduate as a result."

- Mr. Anglin's father provides the most beautiful solution of all: the schools should compensate boys for the "discrimination" they have faced by boosting their grades retroactively because "most of these kids want to go to college, so these records are important to them."

* I would be somewhat sympathetic to these two, except that I just can't be. Apart from two visiting professors, I've not had a single female professor in the past three years. As an undergraduate chemistry major, I had one female junior professor in my field of study, and two other female professors total - in four full years of school, with dozens of professors total. Males outnumbered females in chemistry more than 2 to 1. This is by no means unique. And somehow, we females manage to find male role models and mentors and survive. Although, y'know, if my undergrad would change that pesky B in physics to an A because I had eight male physics professors and no female professors and had a disproportionate number of male classmates...

****

This action is so ludicrous that it scarcely merits comment, except that it's yet one more instance of today's latest fad - allege that schools and/or society are discriminating against boys. Although I'm sure there are individual exceptions, I find the contention that this is occurring at a society-wide level nothing short of laughable (especially if the above is the best evidence that can be presented - oh no! Boys, like girls, are expected to sit quietly and behave in school! THE SEXISM!), but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

(edit because I missed two instances of alleged discrimination the first time around)

[vison]

Dear me. My goodness.

*fans self*

The shock. The horror.

I hope a certain not-to-be-named Manwë poster doesn't latch onto this!

Ludicrous. Ludicrous.

For the luvva pete.

*stops self from exploding*

I'm going to pour myself a tot of Croft's Cream Sherry, and put this out of my mind.

[Faramond]

I think this absurd lawsuit has been filed to draw attention to some of the same elements present in similar lawsuits filed by female or minority students.

I've seen some claims to discrimination by non-white-male students that were just as absurd. Of course there are legitimate claims too.

[Jnyusa]

vison: *stops self from exploding*

How do you do that exactly, vison? I think it's something I might need to learn. Are you available for tutorials?

Jn

[Impenitent]

...

[yovargas]

Dumb lawsuit but...

Research has found that boys nationwide are increasingly falling behind girls, especially in reading and writing, and that they are more likely to be suspended

...that sucks. Why???

[sauronsfinger]

This report was in the local paper and I read it and wanted to write a response ----- "duh".

For 33 years, I taught school in the city of Detroit. The first ten years were in a junior high and middle school - grades 6 through 9 - the last 23 years in a high school. Like any so called study or report or survey, when they give statistics in percentages, most of the nuance of reality is lost.

I taught plenty of males who were very good students and could do all the things that were asked of them. I taught plenty of females who were very good students and could do all the things that were asked of them.

I taught plenty of males who had difficulties with basic things such as staying on task ... and plenty of females also.

On different days, the same child could be in both groups. On the same day the wonderful student could do something to be placed in the disruptive student category. These kids are inconsistent human beings. Because they are kids they are also prone to bouts and acts of immaturity.

If we are making gross generalizations about all males and all females... a dangerous thing to do in my humble opinion .... I would say that the percentage of females who succeed in class and in school is higher than males.

It is what it is. As for the suggestions of how to remedy this supposed injustice...

How can we right these grievous wrongs, you might ask? Mr. Anglin is at the ready with just solutions:

- Schools should give academic credit to students who play sports.

That is senseless and stupid. Sports and academics are two different things - apples and cinderblocks. Sadly, in many schools, athletes, especially star athletes, are already given tremendous help, support and even grades they do not earn just for being athletes. Its a kind of jock affirmative action that is grossly unfair to everyone else.

- Students should be allowed to take classes pass/fail to "encourage more boys to enroll in advanced classes without risking their grade point average"

Pass/fail is at best a solution that is a last resort and not a first option. For many students, it is a signal that they need not expend much effort just to get by. AP classes are the opposite of the type of pass/fail course. Again- apples and cinderblocks. More affirmative action for males. And if it all comes down to pass/fail, the grade point average goes the way of the hula hoop.

- Schools should abolish community service requirements because - no, wait for it! - they are "another burden that will just set off resistance from boys, who may skip it and fail to graduate as a result."

You could make this same argument about any and all requirements the student faces in order to achieve graduation. So why not just abolish every requirement? The debate on community service credits is not settled withing the school culture. I happen to think its a good thing in small doses. Some of the most promising results are having delinquent students work with small children or senior citizens. For some reason, it helps both.

- Mr. Anglin's father provides the most beautiful solution of all: the schools should compensate boys for the "discrimination" they have faced by boosting their grades retroactively because "most of these kids want to go to college, so these records are important to them."

First of all, just because the grades and graduation rates are different, nobody has proved any discrimination. Perhaps it is the sub-culture of many males that is proving counter productive to their success in school? Perhaps we should have young males look to withing themselves and change some of their habits and life styles which are hurting their chances at success in school?

Fat chance of that happening. This is another case of the victim pointing the finger of blame at somebody else who they believe caused their misery. Nobody wants to look at the three other fingers pointing right back at themselves.

"we have met the enemy and he is us"
Walt Kelly .....Pogo

[sauronsfinger]

One other thing..........

American education, and other nations as well, has a built in belief system that I have always thought is harmful to many kids.

Kids of the same age and gender should be educated together as part of a social, egalitarian assumption.

Everybody of a certain age is in a certain grade.

There is no logical reason ... no sound educational reason why it should be that way.

[Jude]

"we have met the enemy and he is us"
Walt Kelly .....Pogo

Wrong! Porkypine.

See exhibit A:



Apart from your tendency to get the facts wrong, I will say that you have exquisite taste in comics.

[nerdanel]

Everybody of a certain age is in a certain grade.

There is no logical reason ... no sound educational reason why it should be that way.

SF, it almost goes without saying that I agree strongly with both these things. It is incredibly harmful, both to the children who are kept to the lockstep age-gender-grade model when they should be above or below the majority of children their age/gender, and IMNSHO it is even more harmful both practically and emotionally to the children who go above OR below their lockstep age/gender-based grade assignment to try to find a place where they fit better academically.

****

Now, what I'd like to hear more about is Impy's point regarding the educational system and younger boys. My uneducated view is that if girls are more likely to sit quietly and behave at a younger age, then yes, the majority of boys do need to be trained to be more like the majority of girls in this one way. I read something recently - I think in the Newsweek article on the same point - saying that boys at that age (5-8?) need something like 5-7 recesses a day because they can't sit still. The school system is supposed to educate them in between that many play breaks?

I guess that the main reason that I don't buy it is because I was homeschooled at that very age (*ducks before SF can throw anything* ). The dozens of homeschooling families in those areas had many, many male children. They behaved, uniformly, every bit as well as the female children. They were disciplined, respectful, and could sit still for hours through a long school day, and simply used well the breaks they had at the beginning, middle, and end of the day to get out their excess energy. They were expected to behave, knew that failure to do so would have severe consequences, and acted accordingly. I'd imagine the majority of public school-educated children are capable of doing the same, given appropriate discipline both in the home and school environments.

But I am not a parent and do not even aspire to be one, so I'm not particularly entitled to this opinion and will listen to the reasons why it might be wrong.

[Erunáme]

I read something recently - I think in the Newsweek article on the same point - saying that boys at that age (5-8?) need something like 5-7 recesses a day because they can't sit still. The school system is supposed to educate them in between that many play breaks?

I guess that the main reason that I don't buy it is because I was homeschooled at that very age (*ducks before SF can throw anything* ). The dozens of homeschooling families in those areas had many, many male children. They behaved, uniformly, every bit as well as the female children. They were disciplined, respectful, and could sit still for hours through a long school day, and simply used well the breaks they had at the beginning, middle, and end of the day to get out their excess energy. They were expected to behave, knew that failure to do so would have severe consequences, and acted accordingly. I'd imagine the majority of public school-educated children are capable of doing the same, given appropriate discipline both in the home and school environments.

tp, you were a unique child and I'd wager the other children you are talking about were as well.

While 5-7 recesses is not necessary, really, you cannot expect a child of 5 to 7 and possibly 8 years of age to sit still and quiet for hours. That includes girls. They don't have the attention span because most of them haven't developed that yet. Kindergarten and first grade, at least, are not anything like what you'd see in a seventh-grade classroom. A kindergarten teacher does lots of crafts, singing, dancing, and other engaging activities to keep children occupied. Activities cannot last too long either or children will lose interest. Lots of recesses aren't needed. The activities I mentioned are needed (not instructional lectures) otherwise teachers wouldn't accomplish much. It would be utter chaos.

My mother has been a kindergarten teacher for years, I've also gone through all-level education training, so I have seen this firsthand. If you asked my mother if it is reasonable to expect a kindergartner to sit still and quiet for even an hour, I imagine she would respond with an "are you kidding me?" look.

I wanted to back this up with research, but the only education book I didn't sell back doesn't address this sort of thing.

You have had an extremely different educational experience and have developed far more quickly than the average child.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The question is (and I don't have an answer): how much of that quicker development is due to natural gifts and how much is due to that extremely different educational experience. (In other words "nature" or "nurture").

[nerdanel]

I probably should avoid referencing myself in any educational thread. Sorry. I actually didn't intend to reference myself at all when I spoke about homeschooling, but rather, the male children I was homeschooled with.

Eru - that would imply that there were dozens of children, all concentrated in the same geographic area, who all happened to be "unique children" (more so than normal) - and whose parents all, coincidentally enough, just happened to make the decision to homeschool them? I feel very strongly that this is nurture, not nature.

Second, the children I encountered during the years I was homeschooled were of varying academic abilities. Some were dazzlingly brilliant (there were two in particular who were studying advanced etymology and pre-calculus while at elementary school age), and others were lagging behind their peers in school - and were in fact being homeschooled for that reason. So, it was not a gathering of nine year old atypical nerds discussing Aristotle. There was one commonality - the strictness of the parents. And that did wonders for the attention span of both boys and girls.

That said, yes, you're right that variance in activities is needed - and most parents did provide their children with that. When you are homeschooled, your parents are responsible for making sure that you receive the equivalent of physical education, and the equivalent of fine/performing arts work that the schools would provide. So, most people were involved in some form of sports or physical skill, and most people were involved in art or musical endeavors. Parents would weave those activities into the school day, such that it was not sitting down with a math book for six hours in a row. That would not have worked, I agree - for boys or girls.

So, schools can and should to the same, to some extent - as you say, weave crafts, singing, dancing, recess, physical education, etc into the school day for the younger students. But even these activities are largely disciplined, right? Crafts or singing, as examples, require students to behave, follow instructions, act in accordance with present rules. It sounds to me as though people are alleging that boys need many unstructured times to let their "creative energy" shine through, and that is what I am disputing.

Voronwë - IMO, 95-99% nurture.

[sauronsfinger]

Jude said regarding my mention of POGO....

Wrong! Porkypine.

See exhibit A:

Jude, my mention of POGO was not attributing the quote "we have met the enemy and he is us" to the character but to the body of work known by the name POGO. Just like if I quoted

"Wake up Little Nemo"........... and said it was from LITTLE NEMO IN SLUMBERLAND ... of course, the words would have been spoken by the boys mother ...

glad to see you are a fellow Walt Kelly fan.

[sauronsfinger]

Regarding this whole issue of attention span and boys not being able to sit for extended periods of time.....


Yes, small boys -and many girls also - do need frequent breaks where they can engage in large motor activities like running and play. A good eductional programs will work this in to the curriculum. Sadly, the increasing pressures upon schools and educators to imrove those blessed standardized test scores has caused many school districts to roll back such recess activity in favor of more classroom time for the testing activities.

Please do not get me going about these tests. it is the tail wagging the dog of education and the sooner we get rid of it the better kids will be.

I went to a catholic school starting in 1955. There were sixty kids in a class taught my one nun. About half were boys. We behaved quite well. The alternative was simply not acceptable.

Of course, that was then and this is now. Did little boys change? Or did other things change?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Voronwë - IMO, 95-99% nurture.

tp, as much as I respect your opinion (fallible though it might be), in this particular case, I question your ability to be fully objective.

the children I encountered during the years I was homeschooled were of varying academic abilities. Some were dazzlingly brilliant (there were two in particular who were studying advanced etymology and pre-calculus while at elementary school age), and others were lagging behind their peers in school - and were in fact being homeschooled for that reason. So, it was not a gathering of nine year old atypical nerds discussing Aristotle. There was one commonality - the strictness of the parents. And that did wonders for the attention span of both boys and girls.

I'm going to ask this question, dangerous though it might be, because I think more data is usually helpful. Was this group made up mostly of Asian-Americans, or was it a racially mixed group roughly equivalent to what you might see in public schools in the area?

[nerdanel]

Voronwë, first you question my fallibility (twice now) and then you question my objectivity. I'm starting to think that you believe I'm imperfect, or something.

Of course you are right. First, I can only speak to my personal experience regarding nature vs. nurture (as is true for most people, except perhaps academics in the fields of education or psychology who have studied these things); second, my individual experience is atypical and needs to be left out of these threads anyway; third, I was raised by parents who scoffed at the notion of being "born with" anything, as do many bootstrapping immigrants from third-world countries, and I've mostly always agreed with them. I'm very biased, I can get very passionate in response to "so-and-so was just born that way" arguments, and I'm going to leave off discussing it further, unless it becomes relevant to this thread.

In addition to being fallible and biased, I'm also not omniscient. I have no idea what that emoticon that Whistler and you keep using is supposed to mean. Can one of you explain?

***

Your question about race, though, is both relevant and not particularly dangerous, IMO. It was neither mostly Asian-American, nor mixed. The vast majority were white, evangelical middle-class Christians. For a time, we were the only non-whites and the only non-evangelicals; race was never an issue, but I think that our Catholic status was slightly more so. Then, a couple more Indian Catholic families joined the fold, as did one mixed race (white/black) couple. But no, it was not an all, or even mostly, Asian group.

***

To clarify my use of the word "white" in the thread title in response to a question: I did so because this article reports that a Department of Education spokesperson says:

"We can neither confirm nor deny the involvement of anyone associated with our civil rights complaints. However, we can confirm that our Office for Civil Rights regional office in Boston did receive a complaint Dec. 9 against the Milton Public Schools alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and race."

I have no idea how to obtain a copy of the complaint, and it seems that the newspapers don't either, because they are not quoting from the language of the complaint, but just from what the complainant has told them. But it seems that racial discrimination has also been alleged, which is what prompted me to place "white" in the title in addition to "male".

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In addition to being fallible and biased, I'm also not omniscient. I have no idea what that emoticon that Whistler and you keep using is supposed to mean. Can one of you explain?

This is not the first time this question has been asked. Halofiria

[nerdanel]

OK, so it can mean:

"Be dignified, even if you are a llama."

[something about Splama]

"Cem is somewhere around."

"Don't jump in the water, if you can't swim."

"Watch where you step!"

"I am hairy and about to spit, but that's just being me."

"I'm stumped but I feel the need to say something."

As always, I'm confused (I was born this way) and have no idea which of these meanings you intended. Although, an admonition to be dignified regardless of species, or not to jump in the water without being able to swim, or to watch one's step, would all make sense in this context. And I hope you were not about to spit.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

tp, that is only a tiny sample of the virtually infinite number of meanings that this magnificent symbolic figure may represent!