Carpe Diem

Grade disparities favoring girls start in kindergarten, and they have profound, long-term effects that can last a lifetime

grades2

AEI’s Christina Hoff Sommers writes in today’s New York Times (“The Boys at the Back“) about an important new academic study (“Non-cognitive Skills and the Gender Disparities in Test Scores and Teacher Assessments: Evidence from Primary School” in the new issue of the Journal of Human Resources, see University of Georgia press release here) that addresses the research question: Why do girls get better grades in elementary school than boys (starting in kindergarten), even when they score worse on standardized tests?  Here’s the opening of Christina’s excellent article, it’s well worth reading the whole thing:

Boys score as well as or better than girls on most standardized tests, yet they are far less likely to get good grades, take advanced classes or attend college. Why? A study coming out this week in The Journal of Human Resources gives an important answer. Teachers of classes as early as kindergarten factor good behavior into grades — and girls, as a rule, comport themselves far better than boys.

The study’s authors analyzed data from more than 5,800 students from kindergarten through fifth grade and found that boys across all racial groups and in all major subject areas received lower grades than their test scores would have predicted.

The scholars attributed this “misalignment” to differences in “noncognitive skills”: attentiveness, persistence, eagerness to learn, the ability to sit still and work independently. As most parents know, girls tend to develop these skills earlier and more naturally than boys.

No previous study, to my knowledge, has demonstrated that the well-known gender gap in school grades begins so early and is almost entirely attributable to differences in behavior. The researchers found that teachers rated boys as less proficient even when the boys did just as well as the girls on tests of reading, math and science. (The teachers did not know the test scores in advance.) If the teachers had not accounted for classroom behavior, the boys’ grades, like the girls’, would have matched their test scores.

MP: The chart above displays some of the empirical results from the research study (in Tables 4A, 4B and 4C), showing that for both math and science, white boys in kindergarten outperform white girls on standardized tests but get worse grades; and for reading, white boys have lower scores on standardized tests than white girls, but get even lower grades (Note: Similar gender gaps exist for black and Hispanic students). In all six cases represented in the chart, the gender gaps are statistically significant at the 5% level or higher. Why does this matter?

One [reason] is the heightened attention to school achievement as the cornerstone of lifelong success. Grades determine entry into advanced classes, enrichment programs and honor societies. They open — or close — doors to higher education. “If grade disparities emerge this early on, it’s not surprising that by the time these children are ready to go to college, girls will be better positioned,” says Christopher M. Cornwell, an economist at the University of Georgia and an author of the new study, along with his colleague David B. Mustard and Jessica Van Parys of Columbia University.

And here’s Christina’s conclusion:

I can sympathize with those who roll their eyes at the relatively recent alarm over boys’ achievement. Where was the indignation when men dominated higher education, decade after decade? Isn’t it time for women and girls to enjoy the advantages? The impulse is understandable but misguided. I became a feminist in the 1970s because I did not appreciate male chauvinism. I still don’t. But the proper corrective to chauvinism is not to reverse it and practice it against males, but rather basic fairness. And fairness today requires us to address the serious educational deficits of boys and young men. The rise of women, however long overdue, does not require the fall of men.

107 thoughts on “Grade disparities favoring girls start in kindergarten, and they have profound, long-term effects that can last a lifetime

  1. “The rise of women, however long overdue, does not require the fall of men.”

    No, but we should be faithful to our government policies of punishing the successful. Maybe some extra taxes on tampons?

  2. Christina Sommers:

    who is not an objective person when it comes to discussion of gender.

    which is a continuing problem with much of what comes out of AEI that is called ” Academic Study”.

    It’s coming from an organization that has an agenda and it comes from an AEI scholar who has a substantial track record as an “anti-feminist”.

    as such when an AEI scholar publishes a study I maintain a healthy skepticism.

    I would have been better convinced if we saw confirming data in the SATs.

    this from Mr. Perry’s own blog: ” Continuing a trend that has persisted for many decades, high school boys scored significantly higher on the 2010 SAT math test, by 34 points this year, than their female counterparts: the average male score was 534 versus the average female score of 500 (see chart below). The male advantage in the SAT math test has ranged narrowly between 33 and 36 points in every year since 1994.”

    seems that all that nasty unfair discrimination against boys in K-12 had the opposite effect on SAT scores?

    • Poor Larry. As usual you have managed to draw the wrong conclusions from an article because of your poor reading and comprehension skills.

      First, Sommers didn’t “publish a study”, she wrote an opinion piece in the NYT. Here opinion piece addressed a scholarly study published by Christopher M. Cornwell, David B. Mustard, and Jessica Van Parys.

      I know that may seem like a fine distinction to your logic-challenged brain, but it’s an important one. You are criticizing the messenger, not the content of the study. We generally know those as ad hominem arguments, and they are considered fallacious.

      It IS refreshing, however, to see you relying on fallacies other than your old reliable appeals to practice.

      Then, you go on to *support* Sommers’s point that boys are doing better than girls on standardized tests, while their grades in school are worse. That’s the subject of the study.

      Do you have any idea what you want to argue, Larry, or do you just want to disparage Ms. Sommers?

      My suggestion would be that you read her opinion piece again, slowly and carefully, without allowing your own biases to filter what you read, and then read at least some of the actual study she discusses. Then come back & try again.

      I have every hope you can do better Larry, just give it a try.

      • Ron is correct. She did not publish the study -this is typical of the AEI to refer to their mouthpiece as a scholar upon which to draw their own independent “conclusions” from a study.

        Here’s an except from the article that should leave no doubt where she is coming from:

        ” In a revised version of the book, I’ve changed the subtitle — to “How Misguided Policies Are Harming Our Young Men” from “How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men” — and moved away from criticizing feminism; instead I emphasized boy-averse trends like the decline of recess, zero-tolerance disciplinary policies, the tendency to criminalize minor juvenile misconduct and the turn away from single-sex schooling. As our schools have become more feelings-centered, risk-averse, collaboration-oriented and sedentary, they have moved further and further from boys’ characteristic sensibilities. Concerns about boys arose during a time of tech bubble prosperity; now, more than a decade later, there are major policy reasons — besides the stale “culture wars” of the 1990s — to focus on boys’ schooling.”

        there is nothing here of any import…it’s an opinion from a AEI scholar it fits into the AEI narrative that girls/women are being given advantages over men and such.

        • Sommers writes: “[I]nstead I emphasized boy-averse trends like the decline of recess, zero-tolerance disciplinary policies, the tendency to criminalize minor juvenile misconduct and the turn away from single-sex schooling. As our schools have become more feelings-centered, risk-averse, collaboration-oriented and sedentary, they have moved further and further from boys’ characteristic sensibilities.

          It’s obvious that you missed an important point in there, so let me try to interpret that on a level you might be able to understand:

          The trends in school policies and methods mentioned in the above paragraph do not meet the needs of boys as well as they should, or as well as they used to. Boys are being graded lower for non-cognitive behavior that doesn’t reflect their actual learning.

          A grade in math should be an assessment of math comprehension, not a measure of attentiveness or fidgeting.

          These lower grades that don’t accurately measure a boy’s actual accomplishments can affect their later opportunities in higher education and employment.

          In your opinion, Larry, should schools accommodate the needs of boys, which are in some ways different than those of girls, or should boys be forced to adapt to a one-size-fits-all system that operates more for the convenience of the educators than the needs of students?

          • re: ” In your opinion, Larry, should schools accommodate the needs of boys, which are in some ways different than those of girls, or should boys be forced to adapt to a one-size-fits-all system that operates more for the convenience of the educators than the needs of students?l”

            if that was actually the case I might lean that way but I question the study itself. I find it hard to believe that ALL teaches in ALL grades have the SAME bias and it is a school-wide PATTERN.

          • if that was actually the case I might lean that way but I question the study itself. I find it hard to believe that ALL teaches in ALL grades have the SAME bias and it is a school-wide PATTERN.

            You can’t squeeze out of it that easily, by announcing your disbelief in something no one has written. You have created a strawman and now wish to use it to avoid further discussion.

            You have already stated that you didn’t dispute the data in the study, so you acknowledge that boy’s grades are lower than their test scores indicate. How would you account for the discrepancy? Apparently boys are learning more than their teachers realize. Why don’t grades, if grades have any value, indicate that level of learning?

          • re: ” You can’t squeeze out of it that easily, by announcing your disbelief in something no one has written. You have created a strawman and now wish to use it to avoid further discussion.”

            no squeezing.. guy.. the results suggest an incredible national teacher bias against boys… bzzzzztttt

          • from the study: ” In the fall of 1998, NCES randomly sampled schools (the primary sampling units) from
            across the United States. Within each school, all kindergarten classrooms were selected, from
            which children (units of observation) were randomly drawn”

            from Ms. Sommers:

            ” The scholars attributed this “misalignment” to differences in “noncognitive skills”: attentiveness, persistence, eagerness to learn, the ability to sit still and work independently. As most parents know, girls tend to develop these skills earlier and more naturally than boys.

            No previous study, to my knowledge, has demonstrated that the well-known gender gap in school grades begins so early and is almost entirely attributable to differences in behavior. The researchers found that teachers rated boys as less proficient even when the boys did just as well as the girls on tests of reading, math and science. ”

            ” If the teachers had not accounted for classroom behavior, the boys’ grades, like the girls’, would have matched their test scores.”

            now think about this. This is a NATIONAL SAMPLE

            and ALL of the Teachers were biased in the very same way against boys?

            really?

      • … ” AEI’s Christina Hoff Sommers writes in today’s New York Times (“The Boys at the Back“) about an important new academic study”

        5 September 2011 this is the one Mr. Perry references
        21 February 2012 this is the one she references

        there are differences in the conclusions…

        this is really a “new” study?

        why would the conclusions change between 2011 and 2013 if the data did not?

        there’s a big problem here because there is an implication that this teacher “subjectivity” continues the same way through multiple grades….

        ALL the teaches are doing this same thing? I don’t think so.

        it appears to me that this whole thing is probably bogus.

        • The link in the NY Time article to the study is broken, and I found an earlier version of the paper as a working paper, and provided that link. I have now linked to the 2012 version of the paper, which is now being published in the current issue of the Journal of Human Resources. The results and major conclustions haven’t changed.

          • the link in the NYT does work but there are two dates and it’s obvious that this is not a “new” study – and it appears that there are changes in the narrative and the conclusion.

            they might just be wordsmithing but it’s still a big troublesome because it was characterized as “new” and not “revised”.

          • From the University of Georgia press release on January 2, 2013:

            Athens, Ga. – “Why do girls get better grades in elementary school than boys-even when they perform worse on standardized tests?

            New research from the University of Georgia and Columbia University published in the current issue of Journal of Human Resources suggests that it’s because of their classroom behavior, which may lead teachers to assign girls higher grades than their male counterparts.”

          • re: ” suggests that it’s because of their classroom behavior, which may lead teachers to assign girls higher grades than their male counterparts.””

            I can almost buy the first premise that boys everywhere tend to be more disruptive than girls – but some basic stats on that would be helpful. Are ALL boys disruptive? Are 5%? If you want a real answer, find an elementary teacher and ask – and you’re going to find out that it’s towards the lower number but where’s the evidence here?

            the second premise that teachers as a whole across several grades – nationwide, without any real evidence other than grades, that ALL are influenced to biased actions against boys is too unbelievable.

            I also have issues with the grades and the tests. Where did the grades come from in the cohort study? Normally, a school is not going to release all grades in several grade levels in a school – but even if they did, standardized tests are not even given in K-3 in some states and the study does not really substantiate the actual sources of the data.

            Sommers herself says: ” No previous study, to my knowledge, has demonstrated that the well-known gender gap in school grades begins so early and is almost entirely attributable to differences in behavior. ”

            where did that last part – almost entirely attributable” come from?

            Finally, I try to identify the actual data (from 1998) they reference and they provide no direct link to it and they really do not adequately identify nor provide the source data itself.

            look at the NCES Early Childhood Longitudinal Program (ECLS)site:

            http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/kinderinstruments.asp

            then look at that reference in the paper. Look for the word “permission” and “copyright”.

            it’s not clear at all what their working data actually was.

            same deal with standardized test scores. What is the source of those scores?

            this paper screams for an addendum to fully substantiate it’s sources.

            but the conclusion – that all teachers – nationwide are essentially biased against boys behavior just does not wash as a conclusion. It’s at best a leap of faith and not a good one in my view.

            I might buy the behavior issue if I saw some supporting evidence of it but the conclusion is just not believable – much less truly supported with data.

  3. Larry writes: “It’s coming from an organization that has an agenda and it comes from an AEI ‘scholar who has a substantial track record as an ‘anti-feminist’ “

    Larry, since January 1, 2012 AEI has published seventy-four essays on education. I cannot find one single article that is anti-feminist. Please give evidence that any of the 74 essays were anti-feminist by AEI scholars.

    I think Larry does not like to see the education establishment challenged by having it be accountable for failures.

    • @CitizenB – I said the AUTHOR had a recognized record that she acknowledges of being anti-feminist and AEI has a record of studies that rather than being totally objective are often ..frequently ones that hew to their philosophies.

      time and again, I have gone into the meat of such studies and found them to be not truly objective studies and not coming form people whose credentials and career are recognized as objective.

      here’s the conclusion: ” … because teachers’ grades strongly influence grade-level placement, high-school
      graduation and college admission prospects”

      fair enough. Now, let’s see the evidence of this as it’s NOT SAT scores…

      boys ARE different from girls. boys tend to be more aggressive and tend to get into trouble more often than girls and this type of behavior continues into adulthood where men commit the vast majority of violence against others including murders and mass murders.

      i’d not be surprised that teachers down rate them in part because of their tendencies toward more aggressive behaviors.

      • I disagree with all you written until “boys are different…”.

        You have missed the point that boys score higher on standardized tests but their grades do not reflect this.

        I do agree that teachers do grade down for boys behavior, ranging from squirminess to physical jousting with classmates. Many schools recognize the energy of boys has to be worked out at reguar class breaks to release physical energy. Regardless, grading down is not justified for behavior issues.

        You still have not given any evidence, that in the AEI Education essay series, of any anti-feminist or even anit-female writing. Where is the evidence that Christina Hoff Summers is anti-feminist? The author is pointing out the unfairness towards males, which is not anti-feminist is it?

          • Larry, thanks for the link. The case is not made that Christina Hoff Sommers is anti-feminist but that she is an equity feminist.

            Equity feminiist? Yep, “ideology rooted in classical liberalism, and that aims for full civil and legal equality for women”. Larry, where do you disagree with that and is it anti-feminist?

          • @citizenB – follow other links to other sources to get a wider picture. She classifies herself as “equity” … not something others agree with.

            The bigger, more important point here is that given her history, I would not expect her to be a objective researcher of gender issues.

            Still – if there are other studies that tend to support her conclusions then I would not ignore them but there are bigger disparities between Hispanics/blacks on achievement than females – and that disparity continues through HS graduation and into post-secondary Ed.

            But ask any K-3 teacher which gender is more disruptive … and it comes at a high cost to the teacher who has to stop what they are doing to deal with the disruptive student and while they are doing that – the rest of the class is not getting instruction.

          • @citizenB – follow other links to other sources to get a wider picture. She classifies herself as “equity” … not something others agree with.

            Heh. And of course you must rely on what others think, and adopt their judgments, as you have no thoughts of your own. Nice one Larry.

            The bigger, more important point here is that given her history, I would not expect her to be a objective researcher of gender issues.

            And of course she *hasn’t* researched gender issues, but has written an *opinion* piece in a newspaper on the subject of a scholarly study by others. An *opinion* piece is one in which a person is expected to express their *opinion*. something you may disagree with, but you can’t fault someone’s *opinion* for not being objective.

            I know, these fine distinctions probably make you dizzy, but they are important.

            If you wish to disagree with the *actual study*, you may want to read it – or ask someone to read it to you and explain it as they go – and then write another of your poorly thought out, fallacious, and illogical comments.

            By attacking Sommers’s objectivity you are missing the point, and writing drivel. At least try to write on-topic drivel.

          • no, we don’t rely on what others think but with AEI forewarned is for-armed.

            she DID write an opinion piece and then she was cited as an AEI scholar

            Did a little search on the actual authors who are primarily schooled in economics – not education.

            I don’t doubt the data but I do doubt the conclusions and without question the “opinions” of which if published in a blog – it invites “comment” … so no problem nimrod.

          • what she wrote is blather.

            That’s lame. What specifically do you disagree with?

            Do you believe boys are graded lower in academic studies because of behavior that doesn’t accurately assess what they’ve learned, as indicated by independent testing?

            Do you have anything to say about the actual subject being discussed, or are your remarks limited to bashing Ms. Sommers?

          • ” Do you have anything to say about the actual subject being discussed, or are your remarks limited to bashing Ms. Sommers?”

            She has an obvious, self-admitted bias guy.

            what she has to say is not objective at all.. she’s just confirming here own bias… and for her to be referred to as a “scholar” is laughable.

            She’s a self-avowed anti-feminist with an agenda.

            anything she says about a “study” is going to be colored according to her biases…

            got that?

          • no, we don’t rely on what others think but with AEI forewarned is for-armed.

            Who is we, Larry? do you still have that mouse in your pocket? If not, the correct pronoun is “I”. Only you are being addressed here.

          • She has an obvious, self-admitted bias guy.

            what she has to say is not objective at all.. she’s just confirming here own bias… and for her to be referred to as a “scholar” is laughable.

            More blah blah blah.

            I guess that answers the question. You have no interest in the actual subject of the study, only in bashing Ms. Sommers.

            Who cares, Larry? Who cares what you think of her? Do you actually believe anyone here values your opinion? LOL

            That’s rich.

            How about discussing the study? Can you do that?

          • re: ” How about discussing the study? Can you do that?”

            sure. They talk about standardized tests.

            why don’t you tell me which grade level tests in which states were used?

            not all states give standardized tests until the 3rd grade

            http://www.fcps.edu/pla/ost/

      • time and again, I have gone into the meat of such “studies” and found them to be not truly objective studies and not coming form people whose credentials and career are recognized as objective.

        Other than that being laughable bullshit, as everyone knows you have poor reading skills, and you don’t know “meat” when you see it, is that, in fact, true of this study?

        Is the Cornwell study by people whose credentials and careers are not recognized as objective?

        • AEI’s continuing narrative against gender and race based preferences is well known.

          All teachers in ALL grades in ALL schools across the country ARE biased against boys?

          really?

          • All teachers in ALL grades in ALL schools across the country ARE biased against boys?

            Hyperbole much? Strawman much?

            I know it’s hard, but try to write something sensible. It’s not too late yet.

          • All teachers in ALL grades in ALL schools across the country ARE biased against boys?

            To keep prattling about this nonsensical idea can only mean that you are one of the stupidest humans on the face of the Earth.

            Surely you must understand some tiny amount of how sampling and statistical analysis are used to indicate averages and aggregates.

            re: ” How about discussing the study? Can you do that?”

            sure. They talk about standardized tests.

            why don’t you tell me which grade level tests in which states were used?

            Larry, it’s not my study. I didn’t produce it and I don’t intend to explain it to you. If you are having trouble reading it or understanding it, I suggest you find someone at your location to explain it to you.

            You can also contact the author at the email link provided.

            You can continue to ignorantly pick at something you don’t like and don’t understand, or you can provide refutation in the form of scholarly work by someone else, but your continued moronic attacks on messengers and a study you don’t like is laughable.

          • what the stats seems to be saying is that a MAJORITY of teachers in a MAJORITY of grades in a MAJORITY of the countries ARE, in fact, biased against a MAJORITY of boys because SOME of them are disruptive.

            the premise makes no sense at all but I would buy it if they had real evidence and provided it and walked through it but what they do here in this very short paper for such a serious claim is hand wave without even providing the source data or explaining how the grades were obtained or the standardized tests.

            not a serious study in my view.

          • what the stats seems to be saying is that a MAJORITY of teachers in a MAJORITY of grades in a MAJORITY of the countries ARE, in fact, biased against a MAJORITY of boys because SOME of them are disruptive.

            the premise makes no sense at all

            That isn’t the premisel. Boys’ behavior may indicate to teachers that they are not learning as well as girls, and their lower grades may reflect that belief. Independent testing, however, indicates that they are learning as well as girls. That’s it in a nutshell.

            …but I would buy it if they had real evidence and provided it and walked through it but what they do here in this very short paper for such a serious claim is hand wave without even providing the source data or explaining how the grades were obtained or the standardized tests.

            You would buy a premise that makes no sense?

            The study was produced by 3 highly respected academics with outstanding creds. It is 44 pages long with copious footnotes and references. It meets the high academic standards required to publish, as determined by the authors’ peers.

            But for Larry it isn’t good enough. You are such a clown!

            In typical Larry fashion you bash the messenger, misinterpret and misrepresent the basic premise of the study, question – without basis – the credentials of the authors, the length of the study, and the data and methods used which you don’t understand in any case.

            All because you don’t like the conclusion, for reasons not known to anyone but you.

            Of course other than disparaging the study and its messengers, you have offered no rebuttal or refutation of any part of it using actual information from other sources.

            What a moron. try to find an actual argument to present.

            not a serious study in my view.

            And your view has no value to anyone but you. No one takes you seriously. I doubt the authors intended the study for someone like you with such limited reading and comprehension skills. They don’t need to “walk you through it” Larry, their intended audience – normal people – understands it.

          • Not a teacher JT but good friends with a number of the including private school teachers.

            When Johnny disrupts the class, he takes time away from all the other students and the teacher has to double/triple their efforts and when the same Johnny flubs his test, he gets less slack than others who ARE trying.

            you’re going to find this issue both in public and private schools and in fact, in a private school, Johnny will likely be asked to leave because teaching resources are usually tighter and even harder to stretch.

            re: the idea that a vast majority of teachers across the country actually act in biased ways against all boys, for the sins of some of the boys is just plain preposterous on it’s face – so no I don’t buy it for a second.

            Much more likely is the way that material is taught these days may be less suited to males… I might buy that if there was some good evidence.

            By the way – gifted students in many schools get additional resources also, just as kids with deficits do but gifted kids get more challenging material.

            but a gifted kid who is also disruptive puts huge stress on a teacher who is trying to get ALL of her/his class educated.

            1/2 of beginning teachers drop out by the 5 year mark.

            The theory seems to be that we need to make it harder for teachers so the “bad” ones will leave.

            I can guarantee you that the harder you make it – the more you will lose the veterans and the newbies won’t even last 5 years given the tougher and tougher requirements.

            Don’t get me wrong – we need to have tough requirements for teachers – but we also need to have teachers…especially in the schools that are in demographically poor areas.

        • And AEI’s continuing narrative against gender and race based preferences is well known.

          Even someone as dense as you should realize by now that gender and race based preferences produce disastrous outcomes.

          • ” Even someone as dense as you should realize by now that gender and race based preferences produce disastrous outcomes”

            only in you are a committed ideologue such as yourself.

            the real world works differently.

            Colin Powell would disagree with you for sure as would quite a few blacks who got ahead because of “help”.

            There was time when not only women could not vote but they could not attend the school of their choice but your neanderthal ancestors thought it fine.

          • re: ” Even someone as dense as you should realize by now that gender and race based preferences produce disastrous outcomes.”

            oh that’s where things came unglued in WWII when blacks were not allowed to serve as pilots in white outfits and on ships only as mess attendants?

            that was the “disastrous” policies you speak of?

            or how about this:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_and_the_G.I._Bill

            was that the “disastrous” racial preference policies you speak of?

            so the white guy came home went to college and made enough money to send his kids to college while the black guy was told to get lost when he tried to go to college?

            was this the “disastrous” policies you and AEI speak of?

          • Colin Powell would disagree with you for sure as would quite a few blacks who got ahead because of “help”.

            Colin Powell is an exceptional person. He would have succeeded with or without affirmative action. He is one of the few politicians I felt was honest enough that I could have supported him for President.

            re: Even someone as dense as you should realize by now that gender and race based preferences produce disastrous outcomes.

            oh that’s where things came unglued in WWII when blacks were not allowed to serve as pilots in white outfits and on ships only as mess attendants?

            that was the “disastrous” policies you speak of?

            or how about this:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_and_the_G.I._Bill

            was that the “disastrous” racial preference policies you speak of?”

            No Larry, the disastrous policies I speak of are those promoted by people like you who believe that past discrimination and racism can be recompensed by placing people in positions for which they’re not qualified, based only on the color of their skin, and thus set them up for almost certain failure. If someone doesn’t qualify for a particular school, they shouldn’t go there no matter the color of their skin.

            so the white guy came home went to college and made enough money to send his kids to college while the black guy was told to get lost when he tried to go to college?

            Do you think the answer is now to admit that guy’s kids (grandkids) even if they don’t qualify? If they do qualify, they should be admitted . If not, they shouldn’t. It’s that simple. Colleges test applicants for a reason. The applicant’s race and gender shouldn’t even be known to the admissions process.

          • There was time when not only women could not vote but they could not attend the school of their choice but your neanderthal ancestors thought it fine.

            Half of my Neanderthal ancestors were women, you moron. Try again.

          • I basically agree with you but how do you fix generational damage done by earlier policies?

            The bottom line is that you can’t. Cosmic justice isn’t available. Every advantage you provide for one person comes at the disadvantage of another person who no more deserves to be treated unfairly than your original victim.

            The best you can do is strive to ensure equal treatment for all regardless of any particular personal characteristic such as skin color.

            I know that one way you can ensure that a group of people will be harmed even more than they have in the past is to provide a welfare state and a culture of victimology and dependence that prevents that group, blacks for instance, from improving their own lives, creates perverse incentives that result in 70% of black children being born out of wedlock and one in every three abortions being performed on a black woman. That’s 3 times the rate for whites. and totals 13,000,000 black fetuses killed since Roe v wade in 1973.

            An unemployment rate of nearly 14% and a rate among black teens of nearly 40%.

            Before the civil rights era, black unemployment was mostly the same as that for whites and for black teens was lower than for white teens. The welfare of blacks was improving, over time, toward parity with whites by every important measure.

            It would appear that the well-being of blacks as a group has worsened since the 1960s instead of improving.

            In fact Charles Murray makes a good case that the ambitious social programs of the ’60s and ’70s have actually made things worse for the poor and minorities.

          • ” Before the civil rights era, black unemployment was mostly the same as that for whites and for black teens was lower than for white teens. The welfare of blacks was improving, over time, toward parity with whites by every important measure.”

            if you admit that generational damage was done during and before Jim Crow – how does the above statement fit into that narrative?

            Blacks were routinely kept from jobs they were qualified to do….

            many blacks lacked the resources to send their own kids to college cut even if they had the money (or GI bill) they still could not get into many colleges.

            to say they had the same unemployment rate… during those days seems a bit hard to believe.

          • to say they had the same unemployment rate… during those days seems a bit hard to believe.

            Then you should look it up for yourself.

            Blacks were routinely kept from jobs they were qualified to do….

            Yes, and such discrimination was institutionalized by such intentional monstrosities as Davis-bacon and the minimum wage.

          • Did you grow up in the South?

            what happened to blacks happened WAY BEFORE Davis-Beacon and minimum wage laws.

            it would be nice to keep separate the confirmation bias from the realities of the South.

            you may also want to be aware of how many other countries have minimum wage laws and not a hint of the problems you mention.. so it’s downright curious that it’s only blacks in this country that are affected.

          • what happened to blacks happened WAY BEFORE Davis-Beacon and minimum wage laws.

            As usual you are having reading problems. It happens a lot when you don’t like what you read.

            it would be nice to keep separate the confirmation bias from the realities of the South.

            Confirmation bias? Is that your new vocabulary word for the week? Perhaps you should learn its meaning.

            you may also want to be aware of how many other countries have minimum wage laws and not a hint of the problems you mention..

            They’re all doing it, eh Larry? You clown.

            so it’s downright curious that it’s only blacks in this country that are affected.

            They mostly affected blacks because they were aimed at blacks. Get your head out of your ass. Learn to think for yourself.

    • re: ” I think Larry does not like to see the education establishment challenged by having it be accountable for failures.”

      then you’d be 100% categorically WRONG.

      but I DO BELIEVE in careful and correct characterizations of the issues and it just boggles the mind to say that teachers in different grades in different schools in different parts of the nation are ALL biased IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

      That’s not holding schools or teachers accountable. That’s really just throwing stuff on the wall….

      I’m ALL FOR Charter schools AND other competing schools BUT ON THE SAME STANDARD.

      I’m ALL FOR online courses for any/all students in any grade and getting full credit for it if they all pass the same standard assessment no matter who the education provider is.

      What I’m opposed to is a laundry list of alleged “crimes” of public schools and public school teachers.

      Teachers in public school work their butts off in K-3 to quickly recognize the kids who have deficits and to get them the help they need so they can stay on grade level.

      Most experienced K-3 teachers and principles will tell you that if the kid gets to the 3rd grade and is still not up on grade level – that the future is grim.

      Some kids just show up with serious deficiencies and the teacher has that kid and 15 more who are on grade level and has the job of trying to get all 16 of them to the next grade level – and it can be an almost impossible job depending on how far back that kid is or worse – there are 2 or 3 kids with deficits but different deficits.

      Charter schools, as currently configured, will not help kids who are behind. They are basically set up to help kids who are gifted and advanced and in a position to excel if challenged. They are not set up to rescue kids who are behind because it takes specialized resource teachers.

      • Charter schools, as currently configured, will not help kids who are behind. They are basically set up to help kids who are gifted and advanced and in a position to excel if challenged. They are not set up to rescue kids who are behind because it takes specialized resource teachers.

        Then I would think you would be all in favor of providing advanced opportunities for those who can excel. there’s no reason to limit their progress to that of their slower peers.

        • ” Then I would think you would be all in favor of providing advanced opportunities for those who can excel. there’s no reason to limit their progress to that of their slower peers.”

          if tax dollars are being used and the premise is that Charter schools can do what the public schools are doing only better and cheaper then they need to perform to the same demographics.

          Otherwise, it just becomes publically-financed private school for selected kids and that’s not the mission of public schools.

          PS are to produce an educated, employable workforce – not just top scholars.

        • if tax dollars are being used and the premise is that Charter schools can do what the public schools are doing only better and cheaper then they need to perform to the same demographics.

          One of the reasons they can do a better and cheaper job is that they have an amount of flexibility not found in the one-size-fits-all public schools.

          Otherwise, it just becomes publically-financed private school for selected kids and that’s not the mission of public schools.

          Oh dear! We wouldn’t want some gifted students to get more from a taxpayer funded education than their slow witted peers, now would we. What is the program called? Oh yeah, it’s “no child allowed ahead”.

          Perhaps charter schools should accept only those students who have difficulty learning or are disruptive, so that others in the traditional public schools can get a better education.

          Do you disapprove of GATE programs and separating students into different groups within a class based on their abilities?

          PS are to produce an educated, employable workforce – not just top scholars.

          Every child cannot be educated, Larry, some can never learn what’s required to graduate from high school.

          Why not allow top scholars to proceed at a faster pace, or study more interesting material?

          • One of the reasons they can do a better and cheaper job is that they have an amount of flexibility not found in the one-size-fits-all public schools.

            that’s fine – as long as they have to meet the same standards – otherwise you’re basically saying that what the PS do is not important or valuable and that’s a different conversation.

            “Oh dear! We wouldn’t want some gifted students to get more from a taxpayer funded education than their slow witted peers, now would we. What is the program called? Oh yeah, it’s “no child allowed ahead”.”

            not when the money is diverted from the intended original purpose – what you seem to favor is institutionalizing leaving children behind.

            “Perhaps charter schools should accept only those students who have difficulty learning or are disruptive, so that others in the traditional public schools can get a better education.”

            perhaps – but what you’re going to find is that your sound-bite concept of their deficits is not the reality. Kids can be and are on grade level in several subjects but behind in one. They don’t need all day on catching up on all subjects.

            “Do you disapprove of GATE programs and separating students into different groups within a class based on their abilities?”

            it’s also called “tracking” and here’s the problem sometimes. they get “tracked” but the low kids don’t get the veteran teacher but the newbie and they don’t catch up.

            “PS are to produce an educated, employable workforce – not just top scholars.”

            Every child cannot be educated, Larry, some can never learn what’s required to graduate from high school.”

            that”s totally true but it’s pre-ordained if you divert from the task itself and walk away even before the kid has a chance.

            “Why not allow top scholars to proceed at a faster pace, or study more interesting material?”

            I favor that. Schools in Va allow gifted kids to ALSO go to specialized classes but for advanced topics.

            We also are seeing more and more tablet software that allows a kid to zoom ahead on their own. During exercise problems, the advanced kids get tougher problems.

            I favor all of the things you favor except those things that undermine and damage the cause – as a supposed creative destruction response… and I favor creative destruction – as long as the basic mission is not compromise either..

          • I favor all of the things you favor except those things that undermine and damage the cause – as a supposed creative destruction response… and I favor creative destruction – as long as the basic mission is not compromise either.

            What “cause” is that Larry? Making all our children into good, obedient little subjects?

            Seig Hiel, Larry.

            Some children WILL be left behind, Larry. There’s nothing you can do about it. Don’t penalize those who can excel. Allow parents to decide what education their children should get, and where they should get it.

          • re: ” the cause” … not sure where that came from…

            damage the basic mission of public education – which is to produced an educate and employable workforce in the 21st century.

            All the other parts of education that are over and above the basic mission are really the responsibility of the parents – in my view.

            If you have a gifted child and you want more than the basic core academic education – then you should consider paying for more/better.

            If your kid wants to play an instrument or sports or learn Latin IV – those ought not be the responsibility of taxpayers.

            And no, I do not think kids should be docile and compliant but in the real world – disruptive kids do impose consequences on others – and others have to work harder to compensate.

            If public school teachers could simply get rid of disruptive kids – they could do a far better job with the remaining class.

            In fact, private schools, actually work a lot more than way.

            Perhaps Charter schools should also, eh?

          • re: ” Some children WILL be left behind, Larry. There’s nothing you can do about it. Don’t penalize those who can excel. Allow parents to decide what education their children should get, and where they should get it.”

            some kids WILL FALL BEHIND no matter what you do but that’s not the same and doing what needs to be done so that the number that get left are minimal in number and truly not easily helped.

            You have to keep in mind – every child grows up to be an adult and every adult who is not employable is going to get money from you gifted kid who grew up.

            Your kid will pay for his food, shelter, medical care, incarceration, etc.

            so we want that number to be as small as possible.

          • damage the basic mission of public education – which is to produced an educate and employable workforce in the 21st century.

            Who gets to decide what the basic mission of public education is?

            If it’s what most people want, there would be no need for forced attendance or taxation.

            Remember that communities joined together to build school houses and hire teachers before there were requirements imposed on them from above by those who know best.

            re: ” the cause” … not sure where that came from…

            It came from you. a direct quote.

            You have to keep in mind – every child grows up to be an adult and every adult who is not employable is going to get money from you gifted kid who grew up.

            Your kid will pay for his food, shelter, medical care, incarceration, etc.

            No Larry, every child will grow to be an adult and some will be dependent on others, but not necessarily those gifted children. Perhaps their poor old parents who will allow them to live in the basement, or well meaning neighbors who will drop off used clothing for them under the bridge where they live.

            Your view that social engineering is necessary is disgusting.

          • Who gets to decide what the basic mission of public education is?

            everyone

            If it’s what most people want, there would be no need for forced attendance or taxation.

            agree

            “Remember that communities joined together to build school houses and hire teachers before there were requirements imposed on them from above by those who know best.”

            and you’ll find that in most states the majority of funding comes from the locality via property taxes and the amount of funding is often over and above what is mandated.

            “re: ” the cause” … not sure where that came from…”

            It came from you. a direct quote.

            yup…but it was clearly a brain fart.

            “You have to keep in mind – every child grows up to be an adult and every adult who is not employable is going to get money from you gifted kid who grew up.

            Your kid will pay for his food, shelter, medical care, incarceration, etc.”

            “No Larry, every child will grow to be an adult and some will be dependent on others, but not necessarily those gifted children. Perhaps their poor old parents who will allow them to live in the basement, or well meaning neighbors who will drop off used clothing for them under the bridge where they live.”

            are you aware of the entitlements that the unemployed received right now?

            “Your view that social engineering is necessary is disgusting.”

            not sure where “social engineering” comes from.

            from the point where we decided on public education and mandatory attendance… it course was set – and that was a long time ago.

            and it’s not just this country – it’s the vast majority of countries – on the planet – and it what most people want. I think “social engineering” is just a pejorative used by those who are in the minority… eh?

            Most people at the locality level EXPECT public schools and they EXPECT that their child will have to receive a K-12 education AND they are willing to pay for it.

            easily 3/4 of taxes at our local level go to pay for schools and 70 million+ over and above (300 million total) what the state requires for minimum funding.

          • But in any case you have already argued against booting students by claiming that charter and voucher schools must operate in exactly the same way as public schools.

            nope.

            You are losing track of your own comments and you forget that we can scroll back up to reread them when necessary.

            and it’s not just this country – it’s the vast majority of countries – on the planet – and it what most people want.

            Oh here we go with that “they’re all doing it” bullshit.

            I think “social engineering” is just a pejorative used by those who are in the minority… eh?

            No, Larry, social engineering describes attempts to force people to behave in certain ways by those in power over those who are not. Think Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and LarryG.

            If it delights you to think you are in a majority and can force others to your will, then you are a true fascist.

            Seig Heil, Larry.

          • “But in any case you have already argued against booting students by claiming that charter and voucher schools must operate in exactly the same way as public schools.

            nope.”

            You are losing track of your own comments and you forget that we can scroll back up to reread them when necessary.

            Nope. you’re not understanding. Same “academic standards and same demographics” .. everything else can be different …

            “and it’s not just this country – it’s the vast majority of countries – on the planet – and it what most people want.”

            Oh here we go with that “they’re all doing it” bullshit.

            they all want it… and that’s why they all “do” it.

            “ I think “social engineering” is just a pejorative used by those who are in the minority… eh?

            No, Larry, social engineering describes attempts to force people to behave in certain ways by those in power over those who are not. Think Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and LarryG.

            when you have representative govt – and a majority agree to do something – are there better models of governance ? you want a dictator instead?

            If it delights you to think you are in a majority and can force others to your will, then you are a true fascist.

            well no… but it is the reality… that controls a lot of things in the end.

            when you think about it – you really to have a very wide variety of options to provide education to your kids.

            but when taxpayer money is used – there are strings.

            If you don’t take that money – you’ve got a wide variety of options available to you so it’s not like you are “forced by fascists”….

          • If it’s what most people want, there would be no need for forced attendance or taxation.

            agree

            Then if it’s NOT what most people want what gives you and your slimy buddies the right to force it on them?

            Kids can be and are on grade level in several subjects but behind in one. They don’t need all day on catching up on all subjects.

            Then it’s no big deal to get students who move from another region up to speed? That was just more pulled from ass stuff like I suspected?

            “Oh dear! We wouldn’t want some gifted students to get more from a taxpayer funded education than their slow witted peers, now would we.

            not when the money is diverted from the intended original purpose – what you seem to favor is institutionalizing leaving children behind.

            Seig Heil Larry you disgusting fascist.

            re: ” the cause” … not sure where that came from…”

            It came from you. a direct quote.

            yup…but it was clearly a brain fart.

            You allowed the real Larry to slip out for a moment.

          • “If it’s what most people want, there would be no need for forced attendance or taxation.

            agree”

            Then if it’s NOT what most people want what gives you and your slimy buddies the right to force it on them?

            no… the only “force” is mandatory education.

            “Kids can be and are on grade level in several subjects but behind in one. They don’t need all day on catching up on all subjects.”

            Then it’s no big deal to get students who move from another region up to speed? That was just more pulled from ass stuff like I suspected?

            it’s what is offered at each school and if not then how much time spent in transit between them.

            ““Oh dear! We wouldn’t want some gifted students to get more from a taxpayer funded education than their slow witted peers, now would we.

            not when the money is diverted from the intended original purpose – what you seem to favor is institutionalizing leaving children behind.”

            Seig Heil Larry you disgusting fascist.

            Oh STFU fool.

            “re: ” the cause” … not sure where that came from…”

            It came from you. a direct quote.

            yup…but it was clearly a brain fart.”

            You allowed the real Larry to slip out for a moment.

            maybe… sometimes what goes on paper is not what I thought I was typing… must be dyslexia or something, eh?

            and we all have brain farts… some of us just admit it.

  4. Maybe testing isn’t all that it’s been cracked up to be. I’m pushing 70 and have been tested all my life. If I let testing determine my choices and outcomes I never would have the life I did and continue to have. My first grade teacher told my mother, after a parent-teacher visit when I got a poor report card and negative comments by the teacher, “Don’t worry. He’ll grow out of it.” And I did.

    • agree. lots of kids that did badly in school (before standardized testing) ended up doing fine later on but a good number did not and questions arose as to why and whether it was demographics, gender, race, schools, teacher, etc.

      that was the elemental premise of NCLB – No Child Left Behind.

      in terms of behavior – anyone who teaches or knows people who teach k-12, will tell you that boys are in trouble much more frequently than girls. Even in high school suspensions and expulsions tend to be tilted more towards guys. And then later in life – guys tend to get in trouble with the law more often and especially so on violent crime.

      I don’t know if this holds true in other countries and that would be interesting to compare.

  5. I haven’t seen a report in many years. However, “grades” were empirical in “my day”. You earned the grade by your daily work and your correct answers and incorrect answers earned you a “1″ or “2″ (passing grades with a “1″ being the best) or a “3″ (not good). It was recorded every six weeks. There was a separate area that recorded your “behavior”, and it entailed 5 or 6 categories. It only said if those categories were satisfactory or not satisfactory. If something similar is not being done today, it appears the “old way” might work better.

    • re: ” There was a separate area that recorded your “behavior”, and it entailed 5 or 6 categories. It only said if those categories were satisfactory or not satisfactory. If something similar is not being done today, it appears the “old way” might work better.”

      that’s what I remember also. I just find it unbelievable that a majority of teachers in all grades in schools across the country ALL have the SAME bias against boys.

      it doesn’t pass the smell test unless of course you are a person or organization that is convinced that girls are treated better across the board..then you produce “advocacy research” ….

      • it doesn’t pass the smell test unless of course you are a person or organization that is convinced that girls are treated better across the board..then you produce “advocacy research” ….

        No one has suggested that girls are treated better than boys, only that the school environment in early grades may be more easily adapted by girls than boys, as evidenced by boy’s lower grades when their behavior is included.

        • ” No one has suggested that girls are treated better than boys, only that the school environment in early grades may be more easily adapted by girls than boys, as evidenced by boy’s lower grades when their behavior is included”

          really? Are you serious?

          in ALL grades in ALL schools nationwide?

          Do you read the AEI/Perry Blogs on supposed gender and race preferences and biases boy?

          this is the same church, different pew, nothing more.

    • “As the boys and girls say , across these entire United of States , Get a Room”

      Get a room?? I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

  6. So, boys are being punished by teachers for not being compliant and docile. Wonderful.

    We can’t have any deviants like that in a proper fascist society.

    • We can’t have any deviants like that in a proper fascist society.

      Well, of course not! That’s why we force their parents at gunpoint to deliver the little savages to an indoctrination center each day, so we who know best can properly mold them into good little subjects.

      When an opponent declares,
      ‘I will not come over to your side.’
      I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already…
      What are you? You will pass on.
      Your descendants, however,
      now stand in the new camp.
      In a short time they will know nothing
      else but this new community.

      ~ Adolf Hitler

  7. Larry is a teacher and/or family and friends are teachers. Larry is talking his position.

    This very same thing is happening to my first grade son. My son is extremely intelligent and recently was given no credit on three words in a spelling test because the woman teacher wrote “sloppy” when the words were spelled correctly. The words were no so sloppy they could not be clearly distinguished. That took his spelling test to a 70% from 100%. His lowest score to date is 100%. The same week she e-mailed my wife twice to inform her that my son was talking too much in class.

    I told my son that the classroom is his teacher’s world and she is the boss. He just has to hang in there till June and he will have a new teacher next year for second grade.

    Teachers like Larry are what is wrong with our education system.

    • JT

      I told my son that the classroom is his teacher’s world and she is the boss. He just has to hang in there till June and he will have a new teacher next year for second grade.

      Good for you. That’s exactly the right answer. He’s lucky to know you are on his side.

      Does your son’s teacher wear jackboots to class?

      I would certainly also complain to the principle about such unacceptable treatment, and perhaps ask that your son be moved to a different 1st grade class if possible.

      If we were the actual customers – as in school choice and vouchers – that type of teacher would soon be embarking on a new career. One that might include asking you if you wanted fries with that burger.

      • re: having your kid run off to a voucher school. If your kid is a pain in the ass, the voucher school is going to boot him because they MUST get the whole class educated.

        the problem with public schools is it is harder to boot Johnnie even when he is a pain in the ass.

        and going to another grade: Do you realize that teachers in the same school actually talk to each other and compare notes on kids who are a pain?

        • First of all, are you actually defending a first grade teacher who would grade a student lower on a spelling test because of sloppy writing that is in fact readable?

          re: having your kid run off to a voucher school. If your kid is a pain in the ass, the voucher school is going to boot him because they MUST get the whole class educated.

          My kid wouldn’t “run off” to a voucher school, I would choose it for him. what a strange thing to write.

          But in any case you have already argued against booting students by claiming that charter and voucher schools must operate in exactly the same way as public schools.

          the problem with public schools is it is harder to boot Johnnie even when he is a pain in the ass.

          And even harder to boot teachers that are a pain in the ass or incompetent.

          Perhaps Johnnie needs more challenging activities than some of his slower classmates.

          and going to another grade: Do you realize that teachers in the same school actually talk to each other and compare notes on kids who are a pain?

          Oh, I know they do. That doesn’t mean they all agree on how to deal with it. Most are actually capable of dealing with 6 year old boys. After all, that’s part of their job. If they wanted to deal only with compliant and calm humans they should be teaching adults. And none that I know or know of expect 6 year old boys to write neatly.

          And no, it isn’t the job of a teacher to educate the whole class, because it may not be possible. Their job is to provide an environment conductive to learning, encourage kids to enjoy learning, and provide them with as much challenge as they can handle.

          That means some kids are smarter than others, some are more capable than others, and will do better than others. Some of that is correctable and some isn’t.

          • First of all, are you actually defending a first grade teacher who would grade a student lower on a spelling test because of sloppy writing that is in fact readable?”

            nope.

            “re: having your kid run off to a voucher school. If your kid is a pain in the ass, the voucher school is going to boot him because they MUST get the whole class educated.”

            My kid wouldn’t “run off” to a voucher school, I would choose it for him. what a strange thing to write.”

            nope.

            But in any case you have already argued against booting students by claiming that charter and voucher schools must operate in exactly the same way as public schools.

            nope.

            “the problem with public schools is it is harder to boot Johnnie even when he is a pain in the ass.”

            And even harder to boot teachers that are a pain in the ass or incompetent.

            depends on the school and state. Keep in mind there are many teachers in right-to-work-states.

            “Perhaps Johnnie needs more challenging activities than some of his slower classmates.”

            might need a swat also.

            “and going to another grade: Do you realize that teachers in the same school actually talk to each other and compare notes on kids who are a pain?”

            Oh, I know they do. That doesn’t mean they all agree on how to deal with it. Most are actually capable of dealing with 6 year old boys. After all, that’s part of their job. If they wanted to deal only with compliant and calm humans they should be teaching adults. And none that I know or know of expect 6 year old boys to write neatly.

            you don’t know just how bad some 6yr old can be?
            it’s not just write neatly. It’s NOT being a pain in the ass, plus being lazy, plus not caring about their work.

            When you have 15-20 kids to keep on grade level – the ones that stand out as pains in the ass… cause the teacher extra work and stress – are remembered.

            “And no, it isn’t the job of a teacher to educate the whole class, because it may not be possible. Their job is to provide an environment conductive to learning, encourage kids to enjoy learning, and provide them with as much challenge as they can handle.”

            nope. the teacher is rated according to how many kids start on grade level and stay on grade level. Folks like you have demanded this – as a way to weed out bad teachers.

            “That means some kids are smarter than others, some are more capable than others, and will do better than others. Some of that is correctable and some isn’t.”

            gifted, smart kids that are not a pain in the ass are joys and teachers will go the extra mile for them in a New York minute.

            gifted smart asses who disrupt the class and create extra work and stress for everyone are not particularly appreciated.

        • “the problem with public schools is it is harder to boot Johnnie even when he is a pain in the ass.”

          The real problem is it’s even harder to boot teachers when they are lazy, incompetent, or even commit crimes.

  8. Ah–could not be happier to see that somebody thought to study this. As the mother of a gifted non-conformist I watched my son endure this same kind of treatment, along other kinds of horrific gender-biased unfair treatment, until I finally decided to pull him from public schooling just to save his soul. My only hope is that I can eventually reverse the damage that a single elementary school teacher did to my son. I cannot thank you enough for validating my instincts.

    • If you talk to K-6 teachers, they will tell you that typically in a class of 15-20, 90+% of them are typical kids… not perfect, sometimes get out of line but mostly good kids who do the work and behave appropriately – boys and girls.

      But they will also tell you than in almost every class there are one or two, sometimes less, sometimes more that are not occasionally disruptive but chronically so. And every time it happens, the rest of the class has to stop until the issue is resolved and sometimes it’s a trip to the principle’s office. Then the teacher has to get back to the other 19 kids who were not disruptive and were ready to continue their work.

      disruptive kids comes in all shapes and sizes. Some are gifted. some are not. Often but not always, they are boys. Some of them are on medication for ADD.

      but there is no nationwide conspiracy of teachers out to get boys. The vast majority of boys behave themselves as the girls do.

      What this study does is a tremendous disservice to hard working teachers everywhere who struggle every day to get ALL of their kids to advance on their grade level while at the same time dealing with things like new kids or kids who have been out for 3 days or a kid whose parents are breaking up, etc, etc, AND to include Johnny running amok to add to the general chaos.

      Every parent thinks their kid is special – and they are but in a class of 15-20 – if a teacher is going to accomplish his/her job and advance all of those kids one grade level each year – she/he has to focus despite the chaos.

      It’s just idiotic to think that teachers everywhere are predisposed to be biased against boys everywhere.

      It almost sounds conspiratorial or how else would you explain the idea that teachers in Montana are biased against boys IN THE SAME WAY that teachers in Florida are biased against boys?

      on the face of it – it makes no logical sense at all.

      So somebody publishes such non-sense and the parents of the johnnies who ARE disruptive use that study to delude themselves into thinking this is a nationwide problem with all teachers.

      this is just lunacy.

      • After all this time you have managed to miss the point of the post and the study or you don’t like it so you lie about it.

        You are either the world’s stupidest person or a truly offensive liar.

        You choose.

        • re: ” You are either the world’s stupidest person or a truly offensive liar.”

          nope. I believe you are the one with the problem here.
          there is no point to the post other than an anti-feminist conspiracy theory about all teachers hurting boys because they misbehave.

          you are the one who refuses to admit the lunacy of this idiocy.. and so that makes you complicit also.

          • there is no point to the post other than an anti-feminist conspiracy theory about all teachers hurting boys because they misbehave.

            I rest my case.

      • Hi LarryG,

        I rarely post comments and this would be my first response to a comment, so be proud of the fact that you have inspired me so.

        I thought we were talking about how the data suggests that teachers can be more subjective than objective in their grading.

        I am not sure how much logic plays into something like that.

        Can we agree that the data is valid and suggests *something*?

        If so, has anyone asked you what you think the data suggests?

        I apologize in advance if the answer lies somewhere in these postings–they are hard to read.

        And, thank you in advance for your reply.

        • @Carolyn – THANK YOU for posting and thank you for being polite and I’m more than happy respond in kind.

          YES, it does indicate SOMETHING. I AGREE!

          first, I need to see the data. Data itself can be valid but wrongly interpreted. The report includes private schools. I need to see how they got the grades and what standardized tests they looked at.

          In my state standardized tests are not even given until the 3rd grade and grades are not generally releasable and even govt organizations that get those grades for studies often will not release them either so I need to see that data.

          Assuming the data is valid, my initial view is that boys learn differently from girls, something that teachers will confirm and it could be that HOW things are taught and grade in the curriculums is DIFFERENT that how standardized tests measure it.

          I think that direction is much more likely than a nationwide bias of teachers.

          You have to be careful with AEI. They have a pattern of doing this kind of thing. With AEI, if the conclusion sounds funny, I dig further.

          • The link to the report is near the top of this posting–it is an academic paper that is 44 pages long. I started to read it last night, but let’s both read it in full and discuss it’s contents then, sound good?

  9. the vast majority of boys are NOT “rip-snorters”. They are equally as well behaved as girls. They do their work and in general are no more a problem than girls are.

    The idea that statistically, boys, in general, nationwide (including private schools according to the study) get lower grades because SOME of them – a small number – misbehave is just plain ludicrous.

    How can any sane person look at this and agree with the conclusion? We apparently have a “vast” conspiracy of some kind where teachers from Tampa to Tacoma are engaged in a battle to punish boys for bad behavior.

    This is comical except for the folks who put stock in it.

  10. ” The researchers found that teachers rated boys as less proficient even when the boys did just as well as the girls on tests of reading, math and science. (The teachers did not know the test scores in advance.) If the teachers had not accounted for classroom behavior, the boys’ grades, like the girls’, would have matched their test scores.”

    now rest your tongue nimrod before making an even bigger ass of yourself.

    • ” The researchers found that teachers rated boys as less proficient even when the boys did just as well as the girls on tests of reading, math and science. (The teachers did not know the test scores in advance.) If the teachers had not accounted for classroom behavior, the boys’ grades, like the girls’, would have matched their test scores.”

      I’ve already rested my case, bozo, you don’t need to continue supporting it for me.

      You’ve only proven again that your reading skills are poor. ask someone to explain what that piece you quoted actually means. I’ve already done so several times, but you are being willfully ignorant or lying.

        • STFU Ron. You’re an idiot.

          Out of dumb comments on the subject at hand, are you Larry?

          You could start from the beginning and ask someone to read this whole post to you and explain the study to you. Then if some glimmer of understanding should penetrate that shell of ignorance you surround yourself with, you could come back and apologize for being such an obnoxious, fascist jerk.

          • Ron – you are simply not only an idiot but a mean-spirited one who seems to enjoy insulting others.

            You offer nothing of any real benefit other than the verbal equivalent of a rough fart.

            you are not intelligent just think you are.. you have no real idea of how the world really works because you live in one that is imaginary.

            so put your tongue to other uses.

          • Ron – you are simply not only an idiot but a mean-spirited one who seems to enjoy insulting others.

            It’s just you, Larry, as I explained previously I have a really low tolerance for ignorant bullshit, and you’re the poster child.

            If you were to start writing comments with actual meaningful content, perhaps we could have a conversation. But as long as you insist on only parroting that progressive, socialist drivel there’s not much hope of that.

            You offer nothing of any real benefit other than the verbal equivalent of a rough fart.

            There is nothing anyone can offer that would benefit you, Larry, as you are a hopeless moron, but I think other readers rather enjoy watching you demonstrate what a drooler you are. You may have noticed that they sometimes can’t help but jump into these long running threads to help me flog you with the sweet twin lights of reason and logic, even though it never helps.

            you are not intelligent just think you are.. you have no real idea of how the world really works because you live in one that is imaginary.

            That’s funny. You certainly aren’t in a position to judge anyone’s intelligence or grip on reality from inside that warm cave. Get your head out of your ass, Larry, look around you with those dim, beady little eyes. Wipe the drool.

          • ROn – you are just a fool guy. You think you are being smart when you write condescending and insulting responses but you are not – you only reveal who you really are guy and it’s not a pretty picture. words like “moron” would be a compliment in a case like yours.

            but it’s that special smart flavor of meanness that really defines you. I’ve encountered your type throughout my life and well familiar with you in many ways.

            I’ve tried to give you the benefit of the doubt – to improve yourself when communicating but you’re just mean through and through like a cur dog.

  11. but it’s that special smart flavor of meanness that really defines you. I’ve encountered your type throughout my life and well familiar with you in many ways.

    I’ve got to say, Larry, that I’ve seldom encountered anyone so determined to remain ignorant as you seem to be. Most people who comment on blogs are at least willing to consider other viewpoints and think about what others write, and are actually interested in learning, but not you.

    You unswervingly serve up your fascist, big government, Obama loving drivel without ever considering you might be missing something.

    You’ll notice that most commentators here have quit responding to your nonsense. You have your agenda to promote, and that’s all you do.

    I’ve tried to give you the benefit of the doubt – to improve yourself when communicating but you’re just mean through and through like a cur dog.

    Heh. That’s funny. We don’t communicate Larry. You post stupid stuff and I call you out on it – that’s all there is. I’m convinced communication with you isn’t possible, as you rely on fallacious arguments without even understanding what they are, argue in circles until you have argued against your own previous positions, either fail to understand or refuse to understand what you read, and insist on disagreeing just to disagree, while parroting socialist views like a good little subjest. In other words, you contribute meaningless nonsense.

    I believe you think you should object to libertarian and free market views, even though you haven’t a clue what you’re objecting to. It’s just something you think you should do, no matter how stupid it makes you look.

    You, Larry, are pathetic.

  12. Hi LarryG–Not sure this post will end up in the right place in the threads…I’m wondering what you think of the data collection described in the early parts of the academic paper, especially the program achievement assessments compared to the teacher’s assessment of ATL which I think is attitude toward learning. Thanks. Carolyn

    • Hi Carolyn – can you specify the pages you are alluding to and the URL so I can track where you are.

      I went back to the http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/ – ” Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS) program” at NCES to see if I could understand what data they collected, from where and what attributes to then go back to the Georgia study.

      I did show the Georgia study to some teacher friends and they were very skeptical of the conclusions and how they got them.

      They suspected that either the data collected was some flaw in collection or the George people misused the data itself.

      Those teachers pointed out as I have that the majority of boys do not misbehave and the study seems to indicate that ALL boys suffered lower grades and how would one explain that on a nationwide scale?

      • Hi LarryG

        The description of the data collection starts on or about page 5 of the link that starts with “Non-cognitive Skills…” above. I did not read “Boys in the Back”–just the academic paper.

        I think the “Georgia/Columbia people” simply ran regression analysis on various combinations of the data collected by ECLS-K to determine how correlated some pieces of data might be.

        The conclusion on page 23 says “grades awarded by teachers are not aligned with test scores, with the disparities in grading exceeding those in testing outcomes and uniformly favoring girls”.

        This is just what the data says.

        Don’t take this the wrong way, but this makes we wonder what teachers are grading in the first place? The quality of the work performed for the assignments, or the extent the student “knows” the material? I guess the student could put in minimal effort on assignment, which the teacher won’t like, but does this translate to “did not master the material”?

        Can you shed some light on the intent of the original study? I don’t think they were collecting data so that the Georgia/Columbia people could find this conclusion mathematically.

        If a study could be done to show what you are saying, that teachers are objective all the time, I wonder what kind of data *those* people would want? The data collected by ECLS-K? If not, what is missing?

        Thanks for your help–I’m really trying to be open minded and see your point of view here. I need something more than “how could there be a nationwide bias?”–this data says there is.

        Thanks.

        • @Carolyn

          re: ” “grades awarded by teachers are not aligned with test scores, with the disparities in grading exceeding those in testing outcomes and uniformly favoring girls”.”

          right – not conclusions at this point as to why but I am curious where these scores are. Were “grades’ and “test scores” collected by the ECLS program?

          where are they? and per your question as to the purpose of the ECLS program – what was the purpose of collecting both “grades” and “tests”?

          I’m told that in early grades – that the grades themselves are Pass / fail… not letter or numeric grades.

          so where is the original data here?

          and who did the tests – same tests given to all students no matter which state? Each state has different tests relative to other states and they test different things so did ECLS develop their own standardized test and give it to students – across the country?

          my basic point of view is this. First I’m not sure how the Georgia folks did arrive at their conclusion even if test scores varied from given grades – there could be a number of reasons why this would be so – ranging from flaws in the original data collection to mis-use of the data collected (which has stated limitations if you read through the overview.

          second – the non-disclosure of the core information and methodology as well as links to the data they references is not a good sign.

          next – the basic idea that teachers across the country are biased against all boys – for the sins of a smaller sub-set just defies common sense.

          there really is precious little data here to walk one through to their conclusions.

          finally – peer review.. I’d like to see some other folks with similar qualifications weigh in on this.

          If you know teachers, you know they are going through papers and looking for right answers and wrong answers and they mark them accordingly, often without even looking a the name… when they are looking at papers – the behavior of the individual is often disconnected from the paper itself. If someone answered the questions or did the exercise correctly -the teacher cannot mark it wrong – and they then go through the papers one by one and record the grade.

          Now.. if order to believe the conclusions of the “study”, one would have to conclude that nationwide, teachers were looking for boys names on the papers and downgrading them purely because they are boys – just because SOME boys mis-behaved.

          it’s makes not a bit of sense.

          I’m willing to read the paper and have but I want to see how they did the data… and I’d like to see what data they were accessing… and how the tests were done.

          I smell a rat here… plain and simple.

  13. I wonder if the behavior that forms part of grades is itself being graded in an unbiased manner.
    If it is, I would expect members of certain racial minorities to suffer even more than boys do. And I wonder if anyone has dared to study THAT question yet!

    • You should read the academic paper–very surprising positive results when taking the race data into consideration. Sorry-it is 44 pages long but very good reading. It is the link near the top of the AEI posting labeled “Non-cognitive Skills…” I’m glad you asked. CV

        • Hi LarryG

          I apologize for the delay–life. That report is 200 pages! I will read it but it will take some time! Until then, and until I “see” you again, here is some “supporting documentation” for my statements.

          Before I start, I see that I missed the statements in the paper about “gender gaps being greater for blacks and Hispanics” for math grades on page 14, and the “disparity between test performance and grading being even sharper for black and Hispanic “ children in science grades on page 15. Remember, though, that you pointed out that the data for math and science is pretty thin to begin with.

          However, for reading tests, on page 5, “The strongest case [for gender gap] exists among whites, where statistically significant performance differences emerge in kindergarten and persist through the fifth grade”. This statement implies that a “less strong case” exists for blacks and Hispanics, which the regressions analysis and values for R-squared in the data sets support. Then, on pages 12-13, the paper describes that in reading test scores, the “gender disparities in grades are even larger” than the discrepancy in reading test scores and goes on to say that this discrepancy does not exist for Hispanic boys—“compared with whites and blacks, teacher assessments for Hispanic boys are more in line with the results of the reading tests. Then it goes on to say that, “the robustness of the estimated gender effects in both the test-score and grades regressions is evident across racial groups” and that “observables [social rating] explain more of the variance in reading test scores than grades”

          So, I took all that to mean that, in the case of reading subject area, the study found less disparity based on race for blacks and Hispanics than it did for whites.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>