Stop Helping Boys

Barry Sheerman

Barry Sheerman is the current chairman of the House of Commons education select committee. (March 2005)

"My own personal view is that women are brighter than men,"

According to the BBC website, he said, "My own personal view is that women are brighter than men," and that there was a "danger" of being obsessed about how boys were doing at school.

Can you imagine him lasting one more minute in office had he said that "My own personal view is that men are brighter than women," and that there was a "danger" of being obsessed about how girls were doing at school?

You may email him here. ...

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

... I did.

....

you can see what I can only describe as a downright lie being promulgated by Chris Keates

Similarly, you can see what I can only describe as a downright lie being promulgated by Chris Keates, the general secretary of the NASUWT (June 2006) ...

She said: "These days we seem to hear nothing else but concerns about the underachievement of boys. I have struggled hard to try to remember the same amount of energy being expended in debate, consternation and general handwringing surrounding underachievement of girls in the past or indeed now."

... For the past three decades there has been a huge effort by both government and educationalists to bias the educational system towards the needs of girls rather than boys, and for Chris Keates to deny this is, in my view, merely a further indication of just how unfit are many of those who work  in the world of education. 

Boys are doing worse than girls educationally. This is an indisputable fact. Something is definitely going wrong for boys. And yet here we see two lofty professionals who are supposed to be concerned with the education of our children clearly indicating that they are not really bothered about this situation at all!

And this, Dear Reader, has been going on for three decades.

When the boys are doing badly compared to the girls, the educationalists at the top of the tree do not give a damn. But if the reverse was the case, the educationalists would do everything in their power to help the girls.

And  if you read the article above, notice that one of the solutions to the underachievement of boys proposed by another leading educationalist is as follows ...

Boys should be made to do more household chores

Boys should be made to do more household chores so as to develop a work ethic that would stop them falling behind at school, an education consultant said today. 

Can you imagine the outcry if he was suggesting that girls should do more household chores in order to better their educational prospects?

It is almost unbelievable, isn't it?

Sometimes I think that these 'educationalists' would more likely blame Saddam Hussein for the underachievement of boys in this country than admit to their own incompetence.

After all, boys spend a good part of their lives in the hands of the teaching profession.

The education of our boys is supposed to be in the hands of the teaching profession.

Given that the education of our boys is failing then, perhaps, those in the teaching profession should ask themselves where they are going wrong.

And the fact that instead of doing this they continually try to pin the blame on the boys themselves - or suggest that their poorer performance simply does not matter - tells you a great deal about the true attitudes of those working in the teaching profession.

Anyway. I won't go on, because I am winding myself up. But I will say that it is still the case that boys are being purposely disadvantaged by the educational establishments.

Indeed, and for example, even though (December 2006) at last ...

Ministers want every primary school in England to teach children reading through a system known as "phonics", which involves building words out of individual letter sounds. 

and, even though, ...

A report on a [phonic] scheme in West Dunbartonshire found that the rate of reading failure in schools in the area is expected to fall to ZERO next year. (compared to a national average of 21% reading failure)

And, even though, at last ...

"The Department for Education and Skills now accepts that synthetic phonics is the most appropriate way of teaching children to read.

 ... thousands of teachers have said that they are still not going to be using phonics.

Thousands of those working in the teaching profession are still actively resisting any attempts to give our boys a helping hand.

In a nutshell: Thousands of those working in the teaching profession are still actively resisting any attempts to give our boys a helping hand. And both politicians - such as Barry Sheerman - and trades unionists - such as Chris Keates - who are supposed to be concerned with the education of all our children are now openly admitting that they are unconcerned about the poorer situation for boys.

...

Stop Helping Boys

And now, at last, after all these years, here is the so-called Equal Opportunities Commission finally admitting that it does not believe that boys should be helped ...

Sept 2007 ... 

Stop Helping Boys School strategies to boost boys' attainment and close the gender divide with girls are “divisive and counterproductive”, according to a report to be published this week by the Government's equalities watchdog. 

... in a highly provocative assertion, the Equal Opportunities Commission, suggests that “playing up the difference will exacerbate such difference”. 

But, of course, this "Equal Opportunities Commission" - which is, in fact, a feminist-dominated organisation devoted mostly to disadvantaging males - has never suggested that helping the girls to do better would 'exacerbate the difference".

Finally, one of the main aims of feminists - if not the main aim - is to break apart the close relationships that men and women can have - particularly via marriage; which, feminists reckon, oppresses women. The amount of evidence showing that feminists have this as a main aim is just colossal.

And one of the reasons why feminists want to see girls doing better than boys in the educational sphere is because it seems to be the case that the vast majority of women would prefer to marry men who have reached higher levels than themselves (educationally, financially, socially etc etc).

Thus, by ensuring that millions of women outperform millions of men in the educational sphere, feminists can be assured that millions of potential future relationships between men and women can be stymied before they even start.

In Front Of Your Nose

So, there you have it.

The leading politician in the area of education, the leader of the main teaching union, and the so-called Equal Opportunities Commission are all finally admitting that they have no real concern about the failing education of boys.

Worse, however, is the fact that there is a great deal of evidence to show that the education of boys has been purposely undermined by powerful feminist-dominated, feminist-fearing factions within those organisations responsible for education.

For example, one only needs to look at the way in which, for so long, educationalists have opposed the view that 'role models' are of any importance to boys when it comes to their education and upbringing, and, therefore - so they have argued - there is no great need to try to adjust the gross imbalance between the genders in the teaching profession by bringing more men into it.

And yet throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s the educationalists put role models at the very top of the list when it came to bringing up children. 

Indeed, throughout the 80s and 90s hosts of role model initiatives were instigated and followed through at a cost of millions to encourage girls to think more about their future careers and less about marriage and families - e.g. Take Our Daughters To Work Day.

But when the girls started outdoing the boys in the educational arena, the notion that the lack of role models for boys might be part of the problem was dismissed completely by these very same people.

Suddenly, role models were no longer seen as important.

Suddenly, role models were no longer seen as important.

And over the past decade or so I have watched educationalists in America, Australia and the UK actually denying that role models are of any particular significance when it comes to the education of boys.

As just one example, feminist-inspired anti-discrimination laws made it illegal in Australia to favour the employment of men over women when filling teaching posts, and these laws were used to prevent schools from trying to increase the number of male teachers working within them.

And the notion that it was important for boys to have more male role models in their schools was dismissed.

For example, ...

"The IEU supports research which shows that it is NOT the sex of the teacher that matters but the approach."

The Independent Education Union, ... strongly opposes male-only [teacher] scholarships. It was entirely inappropriate to use sex discrimination legislation to fill gaps in the labour market, it said. ... "The IEU supports research which shows that it is NOT the sex of the teacher that matters but the approach."

In other words, as far as the IEU is concerned, having men as role models in the teaching profession is not important, and, further - if this was not bad enough - the IEU is clearly concerned only to support research which shows this to be the case!

Dec 2007

Boys To Be Taught Netball And Dancing Schools have been told to encourage boys to play netball and take dance lessons in the name of equality.

Thousands of schools are being forced to ensure that pupils are more "gender balanced" as part of discrimination legislation introduced this year.

They must also ensure more girls study traditionally masculine subjects such as science, while increasing numbers of boys take options such as drama or dance.

Both boys and girls are hurt by the effects of progressivist ed theories: reduction of academic content, blurring of meaningful assessment, packing of classroom time with psychobabble and busywork projects. But much of the damage done by fuzzy ed theories is especially hurtful to boys, since much of the progressivist agenda is overwhelmingly skewed towards girls.

Also see,

Lerning to Reed