New Book Revives Lost Notions of Boyhood

In article ,
dragonlady wrote:
(Keep in mind that this is from someone who doesn't use anti-bacterial
ANYTHING in her home, because she believes that it generally serves to
breed stronger bacteria. I mean, other than regular soap or detergent
and water. I avoid the stuff labeled "anti bacterial". However, the
"waterless" stuff that's being sold to clean your hands when you are
where you can't get to a sink is something I DO keep around for picnics
and stuff -- and, as I said, is probably a good idea after pond dipping.)

From what I've read, it's pretty ineffective. Relying on it could be a
really bad idea.
--
My son reviews _Come Back, Amelia Bedelia_:
"This book is scary, because it's about creampuffs."
spankin' new reviews and blog: http://bunnyplanet.blogspot.com/

In article , Banty says...


Here's something literary for you - read George Orwell's "Animal House".

Really, read it - it has pigs in it. No math.

Whoops, sorry, I now recall that it does get into equivalencies.

Read it anyway.

Banty


--

In article ,
(Wendy E. Betts) wrote:

In article ,
dragonlady wrote:
(Keep in mind that this is from someone who doesn't use anti-bacterial
ANYTHING in her home, because she believes that it generally serves to
breed stronger bacteria. I mean, other than regular soap or detergent
and water. I avoid the stuff labeled "anti bacterial". However, the
"waterless" stuff that's being sold to clean your hands when you are
where you can't get to a sink is something I DO keep around for picnics
and stuff -- and, as I said, is probably a good idea after pond dipping.)

From what I've read, it's pretty ineffective. Relying on it could be a
really bad idea.

From what I've read, it's better than nothing -- that is, if you are
somewhere where you don't have access to water, using this stuff after
you go to the bathroom, or play in the pond, or whatever, is better than
doing nothing at all.

I wouldn't use it if I had access to running water. Nothing is perfect
-- even soap and water -- but the waterless stuff is beter than, say,
air.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Wendy E. Betts) wrote:

In article ,
dragonlady wrote:
(Keep in mind that this is from someone who doesn't use anti-bacterial
ANYTHING in her home, because she believes that it generally serves to
breed stronger bacteria. I mean, other than regular soap or detergent
and water. I avoid the stuff labeled "anti bacterial". However, the
"waterless" stuff that's being sold to clean your hands when you are
where you can't get to a sink is something I DO keep around for picnics
and stuff -- and, as I said, is probably a good idea after pond
dipping.)

From what I've read, it's pretty ineffective. Relying on it could be a
really bad idea.

From what I've read, it's better than nothing -- that is, if you are
somewhere where you don't have access to water, using this stuff after
you go to the bathroom, or play in the pond, or whatever, is better than
doing nothing at all.

I wouldn't use it if I had access to running water. Nothing is perfect
-- even soap and water -- but the waterless stuff is beter than, say,
air.


It's used in hospitals, and my daughter was allowed to use it
as a sanitizer when she was on peritoneal dialysis. It was that,
or washing her hands continually for two minutes with red soap
that practically took the skin off her hands. There's different
kinds of waterless cleaners, and not all are sanitizers...but we
now keep a hospital-grade sanitizer in each car, as a "cleaner
upper" after we're in iffy places (gas stations, thrift stores, etc).

Kris

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
bizby40 wrote:
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
. ..
bizby40 wrote:
And, of course,
if one doesn't acknowledge that boys are disadvantaged,
how can one even investigate the question of which
classroom practices might be involved?

See, this is part of the problem. We don't really know that boys
*are* disadvantaged in the classroom.

We don't? I think there are several studies which
suggest that they are. I don't think there's an absence of
research in this area.

We know that they have less
presence in college, but I'm not sure we really know why that is.

Again, it's not like there is no research in this
area. There are many theories, and quite a few studies
in this area.

A
learning environment that is more hospitable to girls might be one
piece of the puzzle, the perception that being smart isn't macho could
be another part, the non-college options that boys have could be
another, higher rates of crime and incarceration could be another, and
so on.

Of course. Just because there are multiple contributors
to the problem doesn't mean that there are no systemic issues
working against boys in the classroom. I mean, we don't discount
the effects of smoking on heart disease just because obesity
is also a factor. I don't get the point of you (or these
articles) basically pooh-poohing educational practices as
being harmful to boys unless it's to stall action on fixing
those issues. I mean really, look at the title of the
Washington Post piece--"The Myth of the 'Boy Crisis.'"
Do you *really* believe that those authors don't have as
their agenda to downplay the idea that there's anything
wrong with the state of education for boys that ought to
be addressed?
I *do* agree that race and SES are factors, and
worse yet, they seem to be factors that amplify the
gender gap. That doesn't mean that there aren't actual
problems in the classrooms that disproportionately affect
boys, some of the more likely being things like increasingly
younger emphasis on skills before many boys are
developmentally ready for them (including reading skills,
writing skills, fine motor skills, etc.) and having
too much content geared towards typical girl interests
and too little geared towards boy interests in many
classrooms.

(I feel like I'm wading into the 'third rail' of m.k).

Is there a source -- somewhere -- which has a 2-way table, indicating
percent admitted to college broken out by SES tiers and split by
gender? I've been poking around, and googling, but haven't seen
anything summarized. Any and all pointers welcome.

Caledonia

In article .com, Caledonia
says...


(I feel like I'm wading into the 'third rail' of m.k).


Naw.

Wait until about November 29 and ask what kind of Christmas ornament projects
you can do as a teacher's helper in your child's public school

Banty


--

In article ,
Rosalie B. wrote:
"bizby40" wrote:

"Jeanne" wrote in message
m...
Is it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...62501047.html?

Jay Matthews writes a lot about education and he did an article
questioning the existence of the boy education crisis. He also
points to a study highlighting this.

No, but I think it was about the same study. I know the line about
not being bad news for boys, but good news for girls was also in the
one I read.

There was an article in the Washington Post today about a scientist
who was a woman (Barbara) and is now a man (Ben). He overheard
someone who did not know this fact say that his work was good, and was
'much better than' that of his sister.

So there is still a good deal of prejudice against girls in a lot of
occupations even if there are more women in them.

I don't see how this indicates prejudice. If his "sister's" work is
really his own work done when he was younger, it might not be up to
the standards of his current work. Hopefully, we improve with age.

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Rosalie B. wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Cathy Kearns wrote:

And of those
applying many more girls meet the minimum requirements compared to boys.
Now, there's the crux of the problem. The boys'
applications are of lower quality. Why is that? Because
they're not as smart or capable? Or perhaps have they not
been served as well by the educational (as well as other)
systems up to that point? I mean, why *shouldn't* their
essays be as good?

Possibly because the test for admissions itself is biased towards
girls or people who are more verbal. An essay isn't necessarily the
best way to test for how well students will do in college.

Apparently there isn't really a foolproof way of deciding who will
make it and who won't. If there was, people would probably be using
it.

Sure. And I'm sure it *is* true that applications
have some bias to them--more now that recent legal cases are
causing many universities to have *more* essays, not fewer.
Plus, the issue doesn't start here. There is more emphasis
on reading and writing for grades in primary and secondary
school and on college boards. And, of course, that begs
the question of *why* boys tend not to do as well with literacy
skills. Is this innate? Or does at least some of it have
to do with things like introducing some of these skills
before many boys are developmentally ready, or providing
little content of interest to many boys, or reinforcing
expectations that boys will not do well at literacy in
the classroom?

I think it is a mixture of all of the above. Some of it is lack of
interesting content because the people in elementary education are by
and large women who don't find that sort of thing interesting and
aren't good at it or are not comfortable with it.

*If* it is the case that we:

- introduce reading and writing too early for many boys,
so that they struggle, get frustrated, and learn to
dislike it;

I have seen the differences between my girls in this respect. While
dd#1 just loved reading and it came easily to her, dd#2 has never
particularly liked reading and even now does very little of it.

It was the same for 4-H projects - DD#2 (who was very competitive with
her older sister) found sewing very frustrating and couldn't hem
neatly while her sister was making herself little jackets and skirts.
OTOH, dd#1 would tense up and not do well at physical skill testing
and dd#2 would breeze through without even practicing very much.

I also think that even for some girls reading is being pushed too
early for a lot of kids. Girls just happen to be (on average) more
able to deal with it in a lot of cases.

I say that even though I taught my sister to read and I basically
think I taught myself to read at a very early age. My mom did NOT try
to teach me to read and I grew up before Dr. Seuss. But by first
grade I was reading Just So Stories, which was way above my supposed
grade level, so I must have done that somehow.

I've seen an article recently which says that girls with ADD or ADHD
are overlooked because they are not behavior problems and it isn't as
obviously a problem as with boys.

- have too much emphasis on reading "girly" things and
giving writing assignments that don't appeal to boys;

Ditto. That is - it will be more of a problem for boys, but there
are some girls that will also have a problem with it.

I think in the old days handwriting came into it too. Now, with the
availability of computers to correct your spelling and allow rewriting
without having to laboriously write things over, I think boys may be
doing better.

I just talked to my sister BTW and she blames my mom for teaching her
to write between kindergarten and first grade. The reason that she
had to be taught to write/print was that I taught her to read when she
was about 3, but did not bother with writing, so the school said they
would skip her to 2nd grade if she could write. My mom thought that
doing first grade when my sister could already read on at least the
3rd grade level (and had good spelling and math skills) would be quite
boring for her. My sister has always had a big problem with writing
- it makes her very tense.

- increase the time in the classroom devoted to literacy;
- increase high stakes testing of literacy skills (and
punish students who don't perform well enough);

I think this is part of the more (supposedly) rigorous testing that is
being done now. I suspect we'd have a big problem with getting the
establishment to go back to the old days. And the NCLB thing punishes
the kids that are behind by putting pressure on them, and that
includes the teachers pressuring them to be held back so that the rest
of the class can get on.

There has been a big push toward universal literacy which has been
there since I was a teacher and probably before that. I don't
remember that my ds was particularly bothered by being ale to or not
being able to read. AFAIK he doesn't have that problem, but maybe
that is just another one of the things that I don't know about him.

- create a self-reinforcing system where boys perform
less well, get more turned off and discouraged, and
then perform even less well; and *then*
- have the gateway to higher education increasingly
dependent upon literacy skills

then is it at all surprising that boys are struggling
and we're seeing fewer of them in higher education?

The other thing is that the occupations which particularly appeal to
boys don't always require higher education, and even those which
require it now, really don't require a college degree. The upper end
of the educational playing field is being extended just like the lower
end.

I don't think that's the whole story, but I think that
each of the above has been shown to play at least some
role, and they add up to a picture I think is quite
problematic for boys--even nice, white, middle- and
upper-class boys.

Cathy Kearns wrote:
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
. ..

So, how do you explain the declining success of
boys in gaining admission to college, even when they apply?
It would seem to me that those applying to college
certainly believe in attending college, but they are
less successful at gaining admission than the girls.


Next year my oldest daughter is going to be a senior, so I've been doing the
college tour thing. At several of the schools toured they mentioned that
there are many more girls than boys applying to college. And of those
applying many more girls meet the minimum requirements compared to boys.
Now, I've been touring at schools that accept some small portion of those at
least minimumly acceptable, and they are striving to get a closer male to
female ratio than the eligible male to female ratio, so they admitted that
boys that are eligible have a slightly easier time getting into the schools.
For example of 10K eligible applicant, 54% might be female, so 5400 are
girls, 4600 are boys. They'd like their freshman class to be closer to
50/50, so they are willing to go 51/49%. Lets say they accept 5000. They
accept 2550 of the 5400 girls or 47% of the girls, and 2450 of the 4600 or
53% of the boys. So those who apply and are at least minimumly eligible a
higher percentage of the boys than the girls actually are accepted.
Wouldn't that make them more successful at gaining admission?



Sure, they may be more successful at gaining admission but then they may
be at a disadvantage for completion because they're not necessarily
flagged as being weaker. So, nothing is really solved by the "easier"
standards for boys.

Rosalie B. wrote:

I also think that even for some girls reading is being pushed too
early for a lot of kids. Girls just happen to be (on average) more
able to deal with it in a lot of cases.

I absolutely agree. The early pushing of skills
is disproportionately problematic for boys, but it absolutely
is a problem for some girls as well. Same for the increased
organizational requirements.

I've seen an article recently which says that girls with ADD or ADHD
are overlooked because they are not behavior problems and it isn't as
obviously a problem as with boys.

Yeah--girls with ADHD are more likely to have the
inattentive variety. And, of course, many of these issues
that make things difficult for boys also make things
difficult for girls with ADHD or other issues (or who have
issues for other reasons).

I think in the old days handwriting came into it too. Now, with the
availability of computers to correct your spelling and allow rewriting
without having to laboriously write things over, I think boys may be
doing better.

Maybe it's a help in later years, but in the early
years it doesn't. Handwriting is still an issue that
disproportionately affects boys, making writing difficult
and frustrating and making them resist rewrites with both
feet. On top of that, if fine motor control is an issue
at that age, learning to type may also be a challenge.

- increase the time in the classroom devoted to literacy;
- increase high stakes testing of literacy skills (and
punish students who don't perform well enough);

I think this is part of the more (supposedly) rigorous testing that is
being done now.

Absolutely, along with theories of spreading literacy
throughout the curriculum (leaving boys who are having a
challenging and frustrating time with writing almost nowhere
to shine).

I suspect we'd have a big problem with getting the
establishment to go back to the old days.

Yep. I don't see much of any backing off of the
testing, and it drives a lot of other stuff.

The other thing is that the occupations which particularly appeal to
boys don't always require higher education, and even those which
require it now, really don't require a college degree. The upper end
of the educational playing field is being extended just like the lower
end.

Actually, I think the lower end is shrinking.
Where once there were ample jobs that didn't require
higher education, particularly for men, that pool of
jobs is shrinking quickly, making boys' lack of
academic achievement even more problematic.

Best wishes,
Ericka