• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Public Schools In The US Biased Against Males?

Is there a bias against boys in the American educational system?


  • Total voters
    32
Only a doctor and parent can decide if a child is medicated. People cannot blame schools for medicating children. With that said, schools are at blame for no longer taking children's developmental growth into account when planning curriculum. You would be hard pressed to find a kindergarten class involved in developmental play now a days. Any kind of hands on play is considered "time off learning" rather than brain development. Mostly because many of the people involved in the planning don't have a clue about children's brain development. Kindergarten kids mostly sit at desk with pencil and paper doing what third graders did 20 years ago. Our school this year was told to put away the blocks and dress up setting and put some more desks in the class. This is playing out in schools across the country under the guise of school reform.

Some children are obviously going to find it easier than others to sit for approximately 5 to 6 hours a day. The expectations are too high from very young children IMO. Let's not forget about homework either. Not only do the young children have to sit at a desk all day long in school, but then they have hours of homework and studying on top of that. This is too much stress for children so young IMO. They need an outlet, and then they are punished for "acting out" in school.
 
Who makes the decision to put boys on medication?

Parents, or teachers?

Teachers may refer, complain, suggest, or even insist, but the choice to medicate does not lie with the teacher or school.

Does it?

This is complicated actually. I've known of schools that basically refused to allow children who they feel are "misbehaved" (read: unmedicated) into classrooms because they want the child on medication and the parents have little other option. I actually worry a lot about this with our youngest because he is an active child that changes mood really quickly and he is argumentative (even at 4). Plus he is behind when it comes to his learning due to a speech problem.
 
Some children are obviously going to find it easier than others to sit for approximately 5 to 6 hours a day. The expectations are too high from very young children IMO. Let's not forget about homework either. Not only do the young children have to sit at a desk all day long in school, but then they have hours of homework and studying on top of that. This is too much stress for children so young IMO. They need an outlet, and then they are punished for "acting out" in school.

My sons' school requires homework everyday, even from Kindergarteners. It isn't that hard for him really (he has his done in about 10 minutes after getting home). But I can see where other children would have an issue with this.
 
Yes - school is 6 or 7 hours long. Always has been.

Have boys always been at a disadvantage in school? Since the early 1900's?

Or are some of you saying this is something new?

There's like an 80/20 rule.

The lowest 10% and the highest 10% of acheivers don't get what they need because the curriculum and the time constraints are what they are.

I don't see any way of fixing that without making classes much smaller, adding more teachers, getting parents much more involved and perhaps some other possible changes.

We all know that "girls mature faster than boys". Right. Right?

So yeah - girls are going to be able to concentrate and behave better per given age when in younger age ranges. But it's always been like that hasn't it?

One could also and easily say (and I've heard this from parents directly) that over-achieving kids are lost and bored and become disruptive in public school.

They're bored because they are not learning anything or being challenged.

Public school is what it is.

So it's easy to say that public schools are not designed for the highest of achievers, nor are they designed for the disruptive, less mature, can't sit still kids.

Does that mean there's a bias - or does that mean it's just life?

Sitting in a math class doing sheet after sheet of addition and subtraction (which many schools nowadays don't do anymore) during the 60's was boring as hell.
Boys still managed to get through it. Sitting through reading periods and then writing book reports in the 70's was boring as hell, but boys managed to get through it.

Now kids have all kinds of help with computers and graphics and internet .....
seems it should be easier - not more difficult.
 
Some children are obviously going to find it easier than others to sit for approximately 5 to 6 hours a day. The expectations are too high from very young children IMO. Let's not forget about homework either. Not only do the young children have to sit at a desk all day long in school, but then they have hours of homework and studying on top of that. This is too much stress for children so young IMO. They need an outlet, and then they are punished for "acting out" in school.

But this is nothing new is it?

100 years ago many kids had to work after school. And do homework. And chores.

Are you saying the US education system has been biased against boys since the dawn of its existence?

Why isn't it the parents job to find the appropriate outlets for exercise, stress, and rambunctiousness?

After school sports fro instance.
 
And don't forget how we all then turn around and complain that we're losing ground to the Asians and Europeans.
 
I don't think there is much that can be done except possibly trying to provide more tailored education for those who need it. In some cases that may mean one-on-one or independent learning for those students who are either not learning as well or learning much faster than the others or for those who are too hyperactive for normal classrooms. But I don't think its a majority. (I know I'm particularly concerned about my children since one is really far ahead and the other is pretty far behind and has issues that could complicate his time in classrooms.)
 
But this is nothing new is it?

There are plenty of 'new' things going on in the classroom. Unfortunately, some things that are not necessarily developmentally appropriate for all children. It will negatively impact more children, especially boys since their brains develop differently which may not coincide with the new trends in education.
 
But this is nothing new is it?

100 years ago many kids had to work after school. And do homework. And chores.

Are you saying the US education system has been biased against boys since the dawn of its existence?

Why isn't it the parents job to find the appropriate outlets for exercise, stress, and rambunctiousness?

After school sports fro instance.

Good Lord, are you actually claiming that the education system, the way we approach education and students, methods of teaching, etc. have NOT changed over the last 100 years? What about how much importance is put into "state of the art" schools but these improvements do NOTHING to increase the overall grade point averages of students? I disagree with you. There are plenty of things that are different. We have zero tolerance policies, HUGE schools where it's difficult for any teacher to keep track of all his/her students, huge amounts of money spent on school counselors, etc.

I'm not saying that education was any better 100 years ago. I'm sure there are pros and cons on both sides of the coin when it comes to this issue. Some things have been improved and some things have not.
 
No, it's nothing new. It has always been an issue.

But don't the majority of boys somehow rise up to meet the challenge?

So is it really an issue - or just a fact of life?

Is it also an issue in European and Asian education systems?

Do boys in Japan struggle more than girls in Japan simply because they're boys and wired a little differently?

And the ones who don't cut it - well - the world needs ditch diggers and garbage men along with engineers and scientists, right?
 
But don't the majority of boys somehow rise up to meet the challenge?

So is it really an issue - or just a fact of life?

Is it also an issue in European and Asian education systems?

Do boys in Japan struggle more than girls in Japan simply because they're boys and wired a little differently?

And the ones who don't cut it - well - the world needs ditch diggers and garbage men along with engineers and scientists, right?


I'm sure that the same thing exists in schools all over the world.

As for ditch diggers and such, the need for them gets to be less and less all the time.
 
Pisa 2012 results: which country does best at reading, maths and science? | News | theguardian.com

Boys scored higher than girls in maths in 37 out of the 65 countries and economies, while girls outperformed boys in just five countries; Jordan, Qatar, Thailand, Malaysia and Iceland. The OECD claim though that the gender gap is relatively small - in only six countries is it greater than the equivalent of half a year of schooling.According to the OECD, girls "feel less motivated to learn maths and have less confidence in their abilities than boys".
The OECD also found that between 2000 and 2012, the gender gap in reading performance - favouring girls - widened in 11 countries.
The Pisa results show that when it comes to science, boys and girls perform similarly. But in Colombia, Japan and Spain a gender gap in favour of boys was observed in 2012 despite no significant difference existing in 2006.
 
While I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of the educational system overall - I don't think it's quite on-topic.

Is there a direct, or indirect bias or discrimination against boys?

Or is the problem just that there's currently no reasonable or acceptable method of figuring out how to handle those kids that are tough to handle and/or disruptive. Which just happens to be boys the majority of the time.

And it's not all boys is it?

The problem seems to be more that "we" don't know how or what to do with kids that can't focus like the others.

What do "we" do with the rammy, bouncing off the walls, can't sit still, unable to focus and concentrate, and/or disruptive students?

Ignore them? Fail them? Shuffle them through? Grade them differently? Send them to a different school? Put them in special classes? Medicate them? Hold them back? Start them later?

A good start is to recognize that the ability to sit still and focus is a skill that needs to be taught and takes time to develop. We have to accept that, like it or not, it is now the school's job in many cases, because often parents are unwilling and/or unable to do it. Kids will enter school with a wide range of abilities to sit still and focus. Kids, especially in the first few grades, should not be judged and punished for lacking the skill, they need to be trained and given positive reinforcement.

We should also consider how much of the ability to passively absorb information and do paper work is really helpful and necessary. Some people learn better by asking questions, experimenting and having a physical connection to the information. Most of us will not wind up working as accountants chained to a desk all day, more and more tasks are being automated, and accountants don't do math on paper anymore. There are good reasons why much of today's innovation is happening in work places that look nothing like a classroom or traditional office.

With the internet and computers, video and other technologies we should be able to transform learning into a fun process and put more emphasis on the ability to learn on one's own.
 
With the internet and computers, video and other technologies we should be able to transform learning into a fun process and put more emphasis on the ability to learn on one's own.

Exactly! With the exception of reading and math, much of what we learn in school is likely to be obsolete soon. Learning of facts is already obsolete, what with a world of facts readily available on the internet. The ability to evaluate the information we get is far more valuable, as is the simple joy of learning and exploring. Education does not start in Kindergarten and end at graduation, but is a lifelong project.
 
Of course not, it's a ridiculous notion.
 
From OP link-
"The author’s third stop is Poland, a country that has scaled the heights of international test-score rankings in record time by following the formula common to Finland and South Korea: well-trained teachers, a rigorous curriculum and a challenging exam required of all graduating seniors. In the city of Wroclaw, Ripley meets up with Tom, a bookish teenager from Pennsylvania, and discovers yet another difference between the schools in top-performing countries and those in the United States. In Tom’s hometown high school, Ripley observes, sports were “the core culture.” Four local reporters show up to each football game. In Wroclaw, “sports simply did not figure into the school day; why would they? Plenty of kids played pickup soccer or basketball games on their own after school, but there was no confusion about what school was for — or what mattered to kids’ life chances.”

It’s in moments like these that Ripley succeeds in making our own culture and our own choices seem alien — quite a feat for an institution as familiar and fiercely defended as high school. The question is whether the startling perspective provided by this masterly book can also generate the will to make changes. For all our griping about American education, Ripley notes, we’ve got the schools we want."

The author focuses on culture which does have some effect. The article also mentioned in some parts of the world, they have a homework curfew (10:00 pm) so kids don't study all night long. With all these things mentioned I see nothing mentioned about how America has produced, by far, the largest chunk of innovators in the entire world. I have a strange feeling most weren't those kids with a book in their face 24/7 or those kids writing endlessly about those innovators. No, because many of our innovators are the movers and shakers. Those constantly engaged in scientific play and those who are curious about how things tick. Taking things apart and putting them back together again. Those that have a well rounded education that keeps kids curious and ENGAGED. Naturally, that is not sitting at a desk all day long with pencil and paper in hand. Below is a good article-

Snip-You might think the Chinese educational leaders would be happy that their kids are scoring so high on these international competitions. But they’re not. More and more they realize that their system is failing terribly. At the same time that we are continuing to try to be more like them, they are trying—though without much success so far—to be more like us, or like we were before we began trying so hard to be like them. They see that their system is quashing creativity and initiative, with the result that it produces decent bureaucrats and number crunchers, but very few inventors and entrepreneurs. In response to the same PISA report that led Duncan to his “wakeup call,” Jiang Xuaqin, director of the International Division of Peking University High School, wrote this in the Wall Street Journal: “The failings of a rote-memorization system are well-known: Lack of social and practical skills, absence of self-discipline and imagination, loss of curiosity and passion for learning. … One way we will know when we’re succeeding in changing our schools is when those PISA scores come down.” (Italics added) [2]. Be Glad for Our Failure to Catch Up with China in Education | Psychology Today
 
The chief new feature I see in common-core is making the students 'explain' how the they got the answer.
It is frightening to read some of what they write in this infant stage.

As a tutor of the ACT, a huge feature for me is to use the 'written explanations' given by companies for the answers.
This is my version of reverse engineering in education .
 
This passage spoke to me.

Also, to me. No one can deny at one time, creativity was seen as a good thing. Today in education- not so much. It's about standardized kids.

I won't even comment on standardized testing since this is the month we must stop all lessons and focus on test taking skills. No one wants to read my two page rant;)
 
Systematically, it really depends. It is transparent enough to have people within higher levels of administration to comment that they "need" more "men" teaching certain subjects at certain grade levels. For instance, I had been suggested to change my educational direction numerous times because I am a male, and a former special education student myself. Frequently, however, the nature of my gender identification was more discussed than my status as a former consumer. In teacher's colleges, it's a bit obvious (to put it incredibly mildly) how the sex divide begins to reflect how these future candidates are "trained" in the colleges (not necessarily in the field itself, mind you). With elementary education, it would not be uncommon for candidates to be mostly female, and for candidates who were male, it would make them stand out. Even where you saw more men in the upper grade levels, you may be able to discern cultural differences all the same. It was also fairly rare to see a man move to teaching anything other than science or social studies (and with the latter, how often are they moving to be physical education and/or coaches was rather obvious).

During education, you have to say it depends. Sometimes it may be obvious, most or many other times it will not. I will not bother to comment on how it translates to instruction in most classrooms at most grade levels. That being said, I think it is important to consider the population that are being trained for the profession, what grade level they are being trained for, and what subjects.
 
Last edited:
I strongly encourage the use of answer keys that give you the written explanations of answers.
Graphs, Charts, and Tables work great in Science and Math.
Also, testing at local community colleges as well as 4-year universities begins their junior year into their senior year.
Also, to me. No one can deny at one time, creativity was seen as a good thing. Today in education- not so much. It's about standardized kids.

I won't even comment on standardized testing since this is the month we must stop all lessons and focus on test taking skills. No one wants to read my two page rant;)
 
Back
Top Bottom