Parenting Boys
• Is there a "boy crisis" in education? Or, why we should be careful with anything being labeled a "crisis". . .
• Can we (and should we) address literacy and educational concerns separated by gender?
• How are boys different than girls?
• What are "learning styles" and "multiple intelligences"? Or, why we should accept there is not one-size-fits-all for any student to learn, regardless of gender. . .
• What are the literacy goals we should have for our boys? (Hint: Passing the state tests or scoring high on the SAT should not be our goals.)
• What should literacy (reading and writing) instruction look like in schools? (Not quiet and still classrooms, not worksheets, and not simply doing as they are told.)
• What are some current issues we should know about?:
(1) Graphic novels/ comics
(2) Single-gender classrooms
(3) Young adult literature
(4) Game culture
Monday, December 22, 2008
Ridge View High Workshop January 16, 2009: Teachers
Teaching Boys
• Is there a "boy crisis" in education? If so, why have boys dominated SAT scores (girls have a higher average on the newest writing section, but boys have maintained higher scores in math and reader throughout history of the test)?
• Avoiding "crisis" rhetoric and "deficit" thinking and practices. How do we acknowledge and address the impact of poverty without stereotyping, without seeing those in poverty through a deficit lens?
• Can we (and should we) address literacy and educational concerns separated by gender?
• How are boys different than girls?
• What are "learning styles" and "multiple intelligences"? Or, why we should accept there is not one-size-fits-all for any student to learn, regardless of gender. . .
• What are the literacy goals we should have for our boys? (Hint: Passing the state tests or scoring high on the SAT should not be our goals.)
• What should literacy (reading and writing) instruction look like in schools? (Not quiet and still classrooms, not worksheets, and not simply doing as they are told.)
• How can we implement best practice in literacy instruction for boys in a highly standardized educational climate? (Choice, workshops, authentic products)
• What are some current issues we should know about?:
(1) Poverty and education, literacy (the failure or deficit language and practices)
(2) Single-gender classrooms
(3) Young adult literature
(4) Game culture
(5) Graphic novels/ comics
• Is there a "boy crisis" in education? If so, why have boys dominated SAT scores (girls have a higher average on the newest writing section, but boys have maintained higher scores in math and reader throughout history of the test)?
• Avoiding "crisis" rhetoric and "deficit" thinking and practices. How do we acknowledge and address the impact of poverty without stereotyping, without seeing those in poverty through a deficit lens?
• Can we (and should we) address literacy and educational concerns separated by gender?
• How are boys different than girls?
• What are "learning styles" and "multiple intelligences"? Or, why we should accept there is not one-size-fits-all for any student to learn, regardless of gender. . .
• What are the literacy goals we should have for our boys? (Hint: Passing the state tests or scoring high on the SAT should not be our goals.)
• What should literacy (reading and writing) instruction look like in schools? (Not quiet and still classrooms, not worksheets, and not simply doing as they are told.)
• How can we implement best practice in literacy instruction for boys in a highly standardized educational climate? (Choice, workshops, authentic products)
• What are some current issues we should know about?:
(1) Poverty and education, literacy (the failure or deficit language and practices)
(2) Single-gender classrooms
(3) Young adult literature
(4) Game culture
(5) Graphic novels/ comics
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Boys in Crisis?—A. Scott Henderson
Boys in Crisis?
The Minds of Boys: Saving Our Sons from Falling Behind in School and Life by Michael Gurian and Kathy Stevens. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. 2005. 351 pages. ISBN: 978-0-7879-7761-0
Commentators, practitioners, and researchers have frequently used the word “crisis” to describe the state of American education. The most recent “crisis” involves what some observers identify as a widespread decline in the academic performance of boys. In The Minds of Boys, Michael Gurian (a social philosopher and family therapist) and Kathy Stevens (a former teacher and administrator) attempt to document and explain this so-called “boy crisis.” Unfortunately, they generally fail to substantiate the connections between gender, learning, and instruction that they believe are at the root of the current crisis.
In the first two chapters, the authors describe a fundamental transformation in American schooling. Beginning in the last third of the nineteenth century, the United States embraced a system of mass education. Gurian and Stevens argue that this entailed a shift from active to passive learning, which is the primary reason that today’s boys face educational difficulties.
Blaming nineteenth-century pedagogical and institutional changes ignores an important fact. Those who assert that we are in the midst of a boy crisis indicate that it began about thirty years ago. They (the authors included) support this contention by adducing data to show how poorly boys are doing in comparison to girls. But when these comparisons are limited to boys, we see that most of them are performing as well as, if not better than, they did in key indicators (such as math and reading) thirty years ago.
Insisting that it “does no good” to avoid the word “crisis” (39), Gurian and Stevens posit that current pedagogical practices disproportionately hurt all boys because the brains of males and females are intrinsically different. By emphasizing the dominance of nature over nurture, the authors miss the opportunity to highlight one of the undisputed crises in education: the plight of impoverished boys in America’s inner-city schools (Gurian and Stevens devote only three pages to the effects of poverty on learning).
Given the authors’ concern with the role that biological determinants play in learning, it is surprising that they do not discuss variations within, not just between, genders. Had they done so, they would have discovered that differences among boys often exceed those between boys and girls. Only in the last chapter do Gurian and Stevens focus on boys who do not conform to the generalizations they make throughout the rest of the book. Elsewhere, they rely on the phrase, “boys, on average,…” which can begin to sound tenuous unless corroborating data are supplied. The authors further undermine the appearance of objectivity by supporting certain claims with references to the Gurian Institute, which one of the authors co-founded.
Some of the authors’ most persuasive points are in the chapter on ADD and ADHD. Citing alarming statistics on the number of children, particularly boys, who are now medicated, Gurian and Stevens make an impassioned and convincing plea to avoid medicating children unless a specific neurological disorder is diagnosed.
The practical recommendations that Gurian and Stevens make for parents and teachers are among the book’s most useful sections. Although the authors formulated these recommendations specifically with boys in mind (especially with respect to the slippery concept of “boy energy”), they represent best practices in teaching and parenting. The recommendations include: more parental involvement, better nutritional habits for children, providing more opportunities for physical movement and exercise, and implementation of the full range of teaching strategies associated with multiple intelligences. Whether or not there is an actual crisis, both boys and girls would benefit from these suggestions.
A. Scott Henderson is an Associate Professor of Education at Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina. His research interests include brain-based learning and multiple intelligences.
The Educational Forum 71, no. 2 (Winter 2007), pp. 186-187
The Minds of Boys: Saving Our Sons from Falling Behind in School and Life by Michael Gurian and Kathy Stevens. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. 2005. 351 pages. ISBN: 978-0-7879-7761-0
Commentators, practitioners, and researchers have frequently used the word “crisis” to describe the state of American education. The most recent “crisis” involves what some observers identify as a widespread decline in the academic performance of boys. In The Minds of Boys, Michael Gurian (a social philosopher and family therapist) and Kathy Stevens (a former teacher and administrator) attempt to document and explain this so-called “boy crisis.” Unfortunately, they generally fail to substantiate the connections between gender, learning, and instruction that they believe are at the root of the current crisis.
In the first two chapters, the authors describe a fundamental transformation in American schooling. Beginning in the last third of the nineteenth century, the United States embraced a system of mass education. Gurian and Stevens argue that this entailed a shift from active to passive learning, which is the primary reason that today’s boys face educational difficulties.
Blaming nineteenth-century pedagogical and institutional changes ignores an important fact. Those who assert that we are in the midst of a boy crisis indicate that it began about thirty years ago. They (the authors included) support this contention by adducing data to show how poorly boys are doing in comparison to girls. But when these comparisons are limited to boys, we see that most of them are performing as well as, if not better than, they did in key indicators (such as math and reading) thirty years ago.
Insisting that it “does no good” to avoid the word “crisis” (39), Gurian and Stevens posit that current pedagogical practices disproportionately hurt all boys because the brains of males and females are intrinsically different. By emphasizing the dominance of nature over nurture, the authors miss the opportunity to highlight one of the undisputed crises in education: the plight of impoverished boys in America’s inner-city schools (Gurian and Stevens devote only three pages to the effects of poverty on learning).
Given the authors’ concern with the role that biological determinants play in learning, it is surprising that they do not discuss variations within, not just between, genders. Had they done so, they would have discovered that differences among boys often exceed those between boys and girls. Only in the last chapter do Gurian and Stevens focus on boys who do not conform to the generalizations they make throughout the rest of the book. Elsewhere, they rely on the phrase, “boys, on average,…” which can begin to sound tenuous unless corroborating data are supplied. The authors further undermine the appearance of objectivity by supporting certain claims with references to the Gurian Institute, which one of the authors co-founded.
Some of the authors’ most persuasive points are in the chapter on ADD and ADHD. Citing alarming statistics on the number of children, particularly boys, who are now medicated, Gurian and Stevens make an impassioned and convincing plea to avoid medicating children unless a specific neurological disorder is diagnosed.
The practical recommendations that Gurian and Stevens make for parents and teachers are among the book’s most useful sections. Although the authors formulated these recommendations specifically with boys in mind (especially with respect to the slippery concept of “boy energy”), they represent best practices in teaching and parenting. The recommendations include: more parental involvement, better nutritional habits for children, providing more opportunities for physical movement and exercise, and implementation of the full range of teaching strategies associated with multiple intelligences. Whether or not there is an actual crisis, both boys and girls would benefit from these suggestions.
A. Scott Henderson is an Associate Professor of Education at Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina. His research interests include brain-based learning and multiple intelligences.
The Educational Forum 71, no. 2 (Winter 2007), pp. 186-187
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)