August 28, 2006
THE KIDS CAN BE CORRECT OR WE CAN BE POLITICALLY CORRECT:
Teacher's gender affects how well kids learn, study suggests (BEN FELLER, 8/28/06, Associated Press)
For all the differences between the sexes, here's one that might stir up debate in the teacher's lounge: Boys learn more from men and girls learn more from women.Posted by Orrin Judd at August 28, 2006 12:00 AMThat's the upshot of a provocative study by Thomas Dee, an associate professor of economics at Swarthmore College and visiting scholar at Stanford University. His study was to appear Monday in Education Next, a quarterly journal published by the Hoover Institution. [...]
His study comes as the proportion of male teachers is at its lowest level in 40 years. Roughly 80 per cent of teachers in U.S. public schools are women.
Dr. Dee's study is based on a nationally representative survey of nearly 25,000 eighth-graders that was conducted by the Education Department in 1988. Though dated, the survey is the most comprehensive look at students in middle school, when gender gaps emerge, Dr. Dee said.
He examined test scores as well as self-reported perceptions by teachers and students.
Dr. Dee found that having a female teacher instead of a male teacher raised the achievement of girls and lowered that of boys in science, social studies and English.
Looked at the other way, when a man led the class, boys did better and girls did worse.
The study found switching up teachers actually could narrow achievement gaps between boys and girls, but one gender would gain at the expense of the other.
Dr. Dee also contends that gender influences attitudes.
For example, with a female teacher, boys were more likely to be seen as disruptive. Girls were less likely to be considered inattentive or disorderly.
In a class taught by a man, girls were more likely to say the subject was not useful for their future. They were less likely to look forward to the class or to ask questions.
This is ridiculous. Another ploy of the teachers unions to increase their revenue, this time by hiring more dues payers of the male persuasion.
Teachers must not treat boys and girls differently and if they can't be even-handed, they shouldn't be in a classroom.
There might be an argument made for boys-only schools taught by men experienced in handling severe behavior problems, although for many years, a friend of mine taught what was then called classes for the emotionally disturbed made up almost entirely of boys. She was an attractive, petite, soft-spoken woman who brooked no nonsense and who was intensely committed to her students. They knew it and there were no behavior problems in her classes.
Your argument is with human nature, not the unions.
Posted by: oj at August 28, 2006 11:03 AMI'm with erp here--mostly. It is true that beginning around twelve a lot of boys respond better to male mentors--especially ones who take an interest in them but refuse to cater to their self-esteem issues and just demand and push them to achievement. OTOH, girls in a class and female teachers can do wonders for boys' manners and striving. Before twelve, I'd go with women teachers all around and not just for educational reasons. The problem is not so much the gender of the teacher as that two generations of political correctness in educational psychology have made lots of women and male teachers oblivious to what little boys are made of.
Of course, anyone coming out for segregated classes or gender-specific teachers can expect to be deluged with "studies" showing kids in such classes are not as well-socialized and don't relate as comfortablly to the other sex. As Johnny's mastery of condoms and female anatomy and other cool stuff defines him as an educated man these days, it may be hopeless.
Posted by: Peter B at August 28, 2006 11:37 AMSorry no. I know the difference between human nature and anti-human nature as defined by the teachers unions.
Posted by: erp at August 28, 2006 2:38 PMThat's why we should have boy schools for boys, girl schools for girls.
Posted by: ic at August 28, 2006 3:36 PMThen you know that the feminine education lobby is at war with boys.
Posted by: oj at August 28, 2006 4:17 PMYes, it is. But it is also at war with women.
Posted by: Peter B at August 28, 2006 7:39 PMK through 8 women teachers. Didn't much like us boys. 9 through 16, men teachers, all male student bodies. Worked for me, but both schools went coed to survive and appear to be thriving and doing a good job serving their goals and communities. Not sure what to make of it. Different times, I guess. I think it must boil down to the values of the schools.
Posted by: jdkelly at August 28, 2006 7:53 PMoj,
Gotta go with the unionization as the problem. Of course I'm speaking for a generation that actually benefited from public schools.
Mrs. Olsen, first grade school year 48/49, teaching phonics, all her students excelled in their following elementary school years.
Mrs. Latin, 2nd, 4th & 5th grades, superb!
Ms. Fern, 3rd grade, barely OK.
Mr. Bush, 6th grade, an ignorant incompetent!
Starting in 7th grade we had a different instructor for each subject, not really conducive to a gender based study.
Mike