What do schoolboys need? Across the developed world, boys are doing much worse in school than girls, writes Ted Byfield in the Edmonton Sun. As a former teacher in a boys’ school, he doesn’t think boys should be encouraged to abandon the stoic “boy code” and have a good cry.
Yes, there certainly is a boys’ code, and it’s plain from history there always has been, in all societies, in all ages.Yes, it requires boys to be brave, show little emotion, not to tattle-tale, never to cry. It has other stipulations - that they shouldn’t pick on little kids, never hit girls, never kick a guy when he’s down, help people who aren’t able to help themselves, that kind of thing.
It also has higher, more distant requirements - that they be prepared to die for their country, and that they have a responsibility to their family. (Meaning, that if anybody picks a fight with your brother, he has picked a fight with you.) And (if they’re Christian) that they never “deny Christ.”
Instead of feminizing boys, Byfield suggests giving boys schools with mostly male teachers, “a highly structured environment with objective examinations and a clear pass-fail grading system in every subject and at frequent intervals.”
They need good English courses with an early emphasis on the grammar and the structure of language. They need literature that dwells on human conflict, both inner and outer, and makes them want to laugh, cheer, think and weep.They need the same courses in maths they’re getting now with somewhat more Euclidian geometry because it will teach them that things can be “proved” by reason, and they need good courses in logic to demonstrate that things can be shown true or false.
More than anything else, they need a school that makes them stand up when a teacher enters the room, makes them show up for all the classes all the time, and gauges their progress, not by how they “feel,” but by the marks that appear on their report cards.
Many girls would thrive in that sort of school, too.
“Many girls would thrive in that sort of school, too.”
Indeed. It’s not as if boys are a wholly separate species.
Parents who want separate-sex education should have that option.
But I question whether it’s necessary in all cases, largely because I am a male who grew up in a nearly all-female family and whose teachers were nearly all female until university, and I think I turned out OK. And yeah, I cried and still do cry when I am sad in private. Still, I believe in stoicism when necessary: e.g., when I was beaten up. (Why shouldn’t girls be stoic?)
BTW, if separatism is such a great idea, why not have one-race/culture classes? One could argue that culture trumps gender, and that severe measures are needed to counteract “counter-academic” cultures.
Yeah, putting boys into rigorous classes that teach them mathematical proofs and the scientific method, while leaving girls to healing circles and Famous Women quilting projects, would certainly equalize the gender gap, but not in a way any sensible person has in mind. The problem with education today in character-building terms is that boys are being denied pretty much everything they need, while everyone is being forcefed what even the girls only need a little of.
“Many girls would thrive in that sort of school, too.”
Many would, but I suspect that many (most?) boys would not do as well with the corrupting influence of girls around. When girls are around boys have a tendency to want to show-off and try and impress the girls. In a single sex classroom you take one of the major distractions out of the classroom. It would be interesting to see some empirical results of classroom performance across different conditions such as: male vs. female same curriculum; male vs. female gender specific curriculum; and others combinations.
By the way, the phrase “the corrupting influence of girls” as used above is not meant as a negative comment toward girls. Boys corrupt the educational process for girls as well, but the post was about better educating boys so the comment is from the perspective.
Perhaps the most horrifying moment in my childhood revolved around a gross violation of the boys’ code. It was raining, so instead of recess, we stayed inside and watched a movie - E.T. Unlike most of our classmates, neither I nor the girl I liked had seen it before, so we sat together near the front and watched it in earnest while everyone else yabbed on with their friends.
Of course, I started blubbering like a baby when I thought the little bastard was dead. Goddamn I hate that movie. I mean I really, really, really hate that movie.
The kind of separatism advocated here may not have been as necessary, onceuponatime, because boys and girls didn’t need school to learn them the basics of what it took to become a good man or a good woman in their culture. They learned that from their parents and their extended families–and from their churches and synagogues. All those things still exist, of course–some in more battered shape than previously–but even when those influences are whole and healthy, it’s increasingly difficult for them to compete with the messages kids learn from movies/tv/popular music. The larger ugly question here is: Who gets to say what your culture is? Your family, your church, your government, or Time Warner?
A commonly-used personality model (Myers-Briggs) divides people into “thinkers” and “feelers” (actually, it’s not a binary division but rather a continuum). I suspect that those who go into education are primarily extreme “feelers” due to the lack of intellectual rigor in the typical ed school. Once they get out into the world and start teaching, they often run things in a way which is comfortable to their fellow “feelers” and which systematically discriminates against “thinkers.”
This is right on the money. There is a current lack of understanding of how boys think and interact. The liberal educational system is attempting to purge males of the qualities which make us different. A group of males, if left alone, will quickly establish a very logical structured environment. Since logic and structure are dangerous foreign concepts to our current crop of liberals, they are working hard to remove them from our society.
This is mostly right on the money, but I question the wisdom of making everything pass-fail (if that’s what the author meant.) The right amount of friendly (enforced friendly, if necessary) competition is quite helpful in motivating many young men.
“The right amount of friendly (enforced friendly, if necessary) competition is quite helpful in motivating many young men.”
Yeah, but if you know how to set up an environment where the boys that excel at academics occupy the top of the boys’ pecking order, rather than the bottom, I’m all ears.
Ken, in a way we have, perhaps inadvertently. Life after college is the revenge of the nerds. (There’s more to my claim than simple observation of how deteriorated the in-crowd in most high schools is five or ten years out.)
I’m having a hard time accepting that there is some sort of universal “boy code” — or “girl code” for that matter. Not that I’m against same-sex education (especially in middle school), but I’m highly suspicious of framing said education around the idea that boys are just so much more logical than those touchy-feely teen-beat-reading girly girls!
And what would you do with my openly gay boys? I have several this year.
How could there POSSIBLY be no understanding of how boys think when that’s what western culture is based on? How do you read through the canon and not know how a boy/man thinks? Come on, what do you take me for, a moron?
Arch:
“A group of males, if left alone, will quickly establish a very logical structured environment.”
Except in the dish drainer and clothes hamper. I don’t know that I wholly agree with Rita C. (gay boys aren’t logical or competitive?), but the more I think about it, the more Byfield’s list sounds like what we were taught in elementary school was just good citizenship.
Sean… they may or may not be logical and/or competitive… I was referring to the idea of removing the corrupting influence of girls… for gay boys, the corrupting influence is boys :).
Well, as boys (males) are getting left behind academically, I would tend to agree with the comments posted here.
Males are going to be left to lower rungs of society as women who are better educated and can excel in critical thinking and analysis start to displace men in the workplace (my opinion, but I think I’m right).
If we look at the mindless claptrap that the AAUW would have our government officials in utter shock, where is this same shock when it is show that females are beating the crap out of males in high school and college (academically), and according to some figures, wind up earning 3 of every 5 college degrees awarded (all levels) by 2010 (or sooner)?
I see bad things on the horizon for males in the future…