Replies

Interesting article on what's wrong with today's public schools. Lots of unhappy boys and potential turmoil down the road.

PERSPECTIVE
ADVERSE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT (29)
by JANN FLURY
Appearing Exclusively every Monday

March 24, 2003

It is a fact that men and women, by nature, think differently, and that they often have different interests, sentiments, and priorities. Therefore, it follows that boys and girls also think differently. This fact becomes obvious at school, and it creates unnecessary problems, mostly, because these intrinsic differences in the psyche between the sexes aren't accepted or taken into consideration by the "progressive" educators, bent on creating an egalitarian society of underlings.

Well disciplined children who know their place and are treated fairly are happy students. They contribute to the morale and well-being of the school and form part of the safe learning environment. Misunderstood or treated unfairly, without due consideration or appropriate interpretation of rules of conduct, students become resentful, uncooperative, and jeopardize the safe learning environment. In many schools today the prevalence of unruliness and defiance borders on anarchy, and instances have been reported where teachers actually fear for their own safety.

It is noteworthy that, today, boys have more discipline problems at school than girls. They have more problems academically; they do most of the bullying and fighting; and boys rebel against the politically-correct doctrine promoted by modern schools and drop-out more than girls. Have our schools become an adverse environment for boys through the promotion of rules of conduct that are incompatible with the nature of the developing male psyche? If so, why and how?

The high-tech brain wizards of the psychiatric world put their own spin on the problem. They claim that by looking through their own magic looking-glass, they can actually SEE how the human brain and thought processes work. They claim that men and women use the brain differently to solve any given problem. To us mortals, it is common knowledge that boys behave differently from girls because they think differently, and they think differently because their natural roles in life are meant to be different: "Vive la difference!" These differences are observable from early childhood and become modified as the character develops into adulthood.

Girls instinctively exhibit innate, typically feminine traits from early childhood. Girls are more demure, precocious, circumspect, and adaptable than boys. They like to learn new things and are interested mostly in art related, cerebral, non-physical activities. They are gregarious, like to socialize and play role-games with their peers.

Boys, by nature, are typically physical, boisterous and competitive. They like to lead more than follow and prefer physical or competitive games. They tend to be egocentric and readily resort to physical action when angered or threatened. Boys tend to be critical and idealistic, while girls are more altruistic and realistic.

Today, an overwhelming majority of grade-school teachers are women. Schools no longer have adequate male role models for the boys, and churlish boy-type behaviour is no longer well understood or tolerated. It is now seen as symptomatic of a violent personality or labeled as a learning disability in need of counseling or even psychiatric help. Male values like courage and competitiveness are seen as aggressive qualities that must be subdued and replaced with the more benign and politically acceptable female traits of compassion, tolerance and understanding. Consequently boys find themselves in a hostile, adverse school environment, unable to keep up with the girls in study and the woman teacher's behavioural expectations.

These attempts of behaviour modifications have come at a price. Over recent years, there has been an appalling deterioration in school discipline, accompanied by increased violence, and school dropouts. Through the ages, the natural character differences between men and women have been celebrated, and schools encouraged the development of these differences. Today, however, educators are striving to produce a gender-neutral set of values in students that is biased in favour of the female psyche, and the innate differences are being suppressed or crippled starting right in Kindergarten.

Modern educators tore down the old style school with all its traditions and transformed public education into what they tell us is a kinder, gentler institution. They set out to make school fun and exciting; they liberalized school by relaxing discipline and dress codes; they no longer teach manners or social etiquette and ignore traditional codes of conduct; they encourage students to explore and do their own thing. They promise to cater to the needs of every individual student and promote a nonjudgmental attitude by stating that there is no right or wrong. Progressive educators promote group learning in a modern school that is devoid of values and standards. They claim all students learn at their own pace and cannot be held to a timetable or specific goals of achievement.

To the modern educator the object of public school is to produce a student who is tolerant, nonjudgmental and can work cooperatively with a wide range of people in a global community. The emphasis is on political correctness, not academic achievement. Students must learn to "celebrate diversity," without rancor or prejudice. Many restless boy students cannot identify with such nebulous values, and fail to see any purpose in attending school.

Paradoxically, these liberalized institutions have found it necessary to make a whole new set of extensive rules to enforce their edict for a politically-correct environment. They even have a policy of "zero tolerance" against intolerance and against numerous fabricated petty offences that reflect typically boyish behaviour. Any physical horsing around, skylarking, pushing or shoving is strictly forbidden and is often interpreted as violent behaviour or assault. Even teasing is now a punishable offence and classified as a form of bullying.

It seems that the rules in our public schools today are made by cadre of modern educators largely composed of women unsympathetic to boyish behaviour. Boy behaviour is no longer tolerated. Natural male development is suppressed, crippled, or perverted. It's okay to be or act like a homosexual, but it's not okay to act like a normal boy.

It's bad enough that we have such lopsided rules for behaviour in public schools, but what is worse--even criminal--is how educators have chosen to enforce these lopsided rules. Boys must behave like girls or face psychological scrutiny or suspension if they don't comply with the "zero-tolerance" policy against perceived discrimination, prejudice or violence. Many schools hand out suspensions for minor physical altercations, expulsion for repeat or more serious offences. And, of course, for an in-house remedy we have the ubiquitous school psychologist who is usually all too willing to prescribe harmful mind-altering drugs like Ritalin to make boys more docile and obedient.

All these extreme measures for minor infractions do nothing to alleviate the underlying problem: they exacerbate it. It is like putting a dirty bandage on a festering wound. The developing character of a boy needs to be gently, firmly guided--sublimated--not stifled, crippled, or perverted, by politically-correct poppycock.

The intent to create a kinder, gentler society, shaped according to feminine logic, has neglected the developmental needs of boys. The nonsensical, politically-correct rules for behaviour have spawned an environment of rebellious resentment and loathing: a seething powder-keg ready to explode.

Soon we may reach a point with the school discipline problem where neither security guards, school psychologists, psychiatrists nor "All the Kings Horses and all the King's Men will be able to put Humpty-Dumpty together again."

JANN FLURY
905-571-4811

Previous Columns

Good article. Do you have a link?

Back during the early Clinton years (and I was a lurker) there was a letter posted on FR from some education guru to Hillary stating something to the effect that "now that you are elected, we can go forward with our plans". Had something to do with School to Work where a child was pegged at an early age whether he/she would go to college or not. If college was not in the works, then the child would be educated for the workforce. The name of the program kept changing because when parents found out about it they raised hell. That is when lots of parents started home schooling. I remember Texas and Ohio being some of the states talked about. I had the letter printed, but when moving I have misplaced it. I hope I can find it. If anyone remembers this and can freep mail it to me I would appreciate it. This indoctrination starts in the first grade and continues throughout a childs education. If parents don't start looking at what Johnny is being taught, we are going to have big problems - bigger than we have now.

OB