Spunky Homeschool

Boys in Crisis

Jan. 26, 2006 at 8:08 AM


When the "educational establishment" calls something a crisis watch out. That usually means someone has to do something to fix the mess. But what happens when the "crisis" was created by the very ones who want to fix it? Do we just go on letting them meddle and experiment on our children until they get it right? Sorry my children won't be guinea pigs in their laboratory.

Twenty years ago girls were in a "crisis". Now it's the boys turn says a cover story out in Newseek Magazine.
By almost every benchmark, boys across the nation and in every demographic group are falling behind. In elementary school, boys are two times more likely than girls to be diagnosed with learning disabilities and twice as likely to be placed in special-education classes. High-school boys are losing ground to girls on standardized writing tests. .....
And the list of woes goes on all the way into college. There are plenty of solutions offered by PhD types to this crisis. They now say we can't treat boys and girls equally anymore. Now "boy friendly" classrooms or segragated learning is the key to helping our boys. But won't that leave us back to where we were 20 years ago? Won't that just lead to a "girl crisis"? Are we solving anything? Of course not.   But that doesn't matter. It sounds good right now and that's all that matters.
One of the most reliable predictors of whether a boy will succeed or fail in high school rests on a single question: does he have a man in his life to look up to? Too often, the answer is no. High rates of divorce and single motherhood have created a generation of fatherless boys. In every kind of neighborhood, rich or poor, an increasing number of boys - now a startling 40 percent - are being raised without their biological dads.
That is the real issue. And despite how hard Uncle Sam tries he will never make a good dad. The sooner we all accept that fact the better.
 
Update: Some boys are fighting back the schools' bias against boys. How? They're suing the schools for discrimination. (HT: Joanne Jacobs)

Related Tags: , , , , , ,

6 Comments and Trackbacks

posted by Boltbabe on Jan. 26, 2006 at 8:25 AM

I blogged about this yesterday after reading an article in the Washington Times

http://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20060122-120546-2696r.htm

I was smacked with a comment about the teacher's being inadequate. Instead of firing them and hiring competent teachers, they are pouring more tax $ into new programs for boys. We get to pay twice to educate the same kids! Grrrr!!!

posted by Momwtrmn on Jan. 26, 2006 at 12:28 PM

Doesn't it just make your heart ache? Hubby and I have been in situations where our family is made to minister to the fatherless, and we are grateful for those times. Each time, the situation is just heart-wrenching: girls who grow to be promiscuous and boys with no direction.

Another great tragedy we see is that so many parents believe the "fix" to this problem is to get married again... to someone... anyone. By the time it's all over, the "household" consists of his, hers, and theirs. This is not God's plan, either, unless both are widowed. But bouncing from home to home with visitation schedules? Hurtful at worst and barely effective at best.

Let's continue to keep our babies out of public education!

Many blessings!
Christi

posted by Zeromark on Jan. 26, 2006 at 6:42 PM

"Now "boy friendly" classrooms or segragated learning is the key to helping our boys. But won't that leave us back to where we were 20 years ago? Won't that just lead to a "girl crisis"? Are we solving anything?"

I think we are. It's common knowledge that single-sex enviroments work better for both sexes in middle and high school - Single-sex schools, private and public, fare far better academically then there co-ed counterparts. Why? The answer is simple.
1. The teacher only has to concentrate on getting the point across to one gender,
2 There are no distractions from the opposite sex and thus, there is no need to compete for the opposite sex's attention
3. Lastly the students build up a sense of fraternity or sorority accordingly.

And moreover, in many single-sex schools have accompianing reputations for more than just academic excellence, and my high school in particular, a strong reputation for producing gentlemen. It was taught and expected we act like gentlemen to women of any age, and we followed through.

Just my two cents.

posted by spunkyhomeschool on Jan. 26, 2006 at 6:47 PM

I know what you are saying. My point was that schools used to be more segregated and geared to the boys. Then the feminist got all up in arms. Said their was a crisis and demanded reforms. According to many these reforms were geared toward the girls. Leading to the crises we have today. So reverting back to the segregate or "boy classroom" would put us back at the beginning of the cycle.

In theory I agree that often segregate classes do better. Any environment that is more tailored in scope or focus will always do better than the one size fits all model.

posted by jasontromm on Jan. 27, 2006 at 9:40 AM

Our schools have been feminized too much.

Boys are discouraged from writing about what they know. They want to write about cops and robbers, cowboys and indians. Things that involve guns. They want to read books about sports, but all of this is discouraged by the PC crowd who want to make boys be kinder and gentler

It's hard for boys to learn if they're not allowed to burn off excess energy at recess. Even there, the boys are told they have to act more like girls. No cops and robbers because that involves guns. No tag because it makes the person who's "it" feel bad. No dodge-ball because somebody could get hurt.

posted by spunkyhomeschool on Jan. 27, 2006 at 9:52 AM

I totally agree with you on the feminization of our boys. However, as a short little girl who hid in the corner during gym glass I guess I am glad that did away with Dodge ball. I was always the target of their attack. :)

Post a comment!