When my now 17-year-old was 4 and 5, we did two years of PreK. It helped that we started at one school and then went to another. At the time a lot of it was driven by the fact that mom and I were divorcing and we wanted to create space to process that as much as a 4-year-old can make sense of that chaos, but when I look at the difference today, I’m so thankful we did for so many more reasons.
I should add that, intellectually, my kid was then, and remains today, freaking brilliant (and that’s not bias, the kid performs at the 98th percentile without studying). So it’s not about intellectual capability, but non-cognitive developmental reasons.
I found this idea, redshirting, quite dangerous. Studies have shown that delaying education, there is a significant drop in IQ. And plethora of other issues. while the diagnosis is more or less right, boys are not doing well in school. I think the language used is also problematic: "Boys develop more slowly", another way to tell the world that women are the "best" sex (they develop faster!). Boys don't develop more slowly, they develop differently. They have different needs, different strategy to acquire knowledge and maybe different interests.
I think the best solution is to separate boys and girls, from first grade to bachelor's degree. encourage having as many men as possible for boys and teenage boys' education.
I can understand the fear of delaying education, although I think what’s pitched in the book is a couple years of preschool for boys, so you’re not delaying them, you’re just giving them an extra year. Your splitting idea could be super helpful here.
What about a three month or six month offset instead of a full year? My son is high energy/young-for-his-age, and I am very thankful that his birthday came a week after the cut-off instead of a week before. But a second extra year would be too much. I don't want him turning seven a month into kindergarten.
I find this idea very intriguing, though I hope there would be some flexibility in policy to accommodate the outliers, such as my son. At age 3, he had preternaturally unusual self control, at age 4 he tested into a gifted and talented program, and has been running through school curricula two years ahead of grade (that's how his school is set up). Now at 16 years old, he's extremely mature, strategic, and risk averse. He would have missed out on a year of productive learning if he'd been held back.
My daughter was adopted and spent her earliest years in institutional care outside the U.S. She continues to struggle with impulse control, executive functioning, and is way behind her peers on emotional maturity. She would probably have benefited from an extra year before school.
To implement this policy, let's think about how to accommodate the outliers by gender. Either by making red-shirting optional, at parental discretion. Or, create a way for individual kids to test out of the rule.
I think you'll make a lot more progress and waste far less time if you stay away from the vile cesspool that is twitter. Nobody there argues in good faith, and using it only makes you dumber with time.
Interesting idea. I think it might not make sense as the first thing to try, as I don't think it addresses the demoralisation of boys and young men, in some ways it affirms it.
I’m never heard the term redshirt, but in Australia its pretty much the norm to start boys later than girls. It became a trend 20 years ago and has continued. Evidence suggests gains for boys in infants/primary but evens out by high school and then you’ve got adult males in high school; the smart ones (like my son) resent the extra year, and those that don’t want to be there cause trouble for everyone. Boys are concentrated at the top and bottom ends, there is a wide range of ability and social skills, whereas girls tend to concentrate around the average. I also don’t see what difference it makes if they’re going to be in early learning/pre-school anyway. Presumably they’d have to repeat kindergarten which seems unfair.
This all makes sense to me, however I hope you put a disclaimer in your book (I hope I can find it one day over here in Portugal), about how we usually are speaking in generalisations, because there are always exceptions. My husband learned to read with the help of a tutor by age four and had read all of Dumasby age nine. So he entered first grade at age six and was hated and taunted and picked on by the bigger kids, who even followed him home from school pelting rocks at him. He was the most kind andpatient man I ever knew. The only people who didn't like him were pretentious snobs.
To me, the world is not two dimensional, but more like one of those wooden round puzzles, which pieces are all different and interlock together, but that's hard to show on two dimensional graphs on two dimensional paper.
I wonder what data there is on amount of study and homework time of boys and girls. I suspect boys devote less time on average. This falls into your prefrontal cortex theory to further explain why scores on math and science are closing.
This is my own subjective university experience, but I have found myself, increasingly over time, having to deliberate if its worth casting an opinion -- since many have been squashed by, "this is mansplaining" or "as a white male, you can't...", and so often I hear my male colleagues being readily pathologised for trivial behaviour. I find the idea of boys starting education later due to cerebral developmental differences very interesting, but at the same time, I can already hear a future female academic telling an enthusiastic chap that his opinion is invalid due to a lack of neurological development. That kind of comment would break me.
Do young boys need to be redshirted or do they (and young girls) need for their fathers to take a red shirt?
Taking a redshirt as a father doesn't mean playing for the Bucs for one more year, in case you're wondering.
It means taking one year per child as primarily responsible parent. This time period roughly matches the time when women are primarily responsible parents during late pregnancy, delivery, lactation.
I am wondering if these educational delays in boys have to do with fathers not modeling that doing the grunt work is important?
Also, emotional availability in fathers is important for children to have emotional literacy about themselves, which provides motivation to learn and grow as well as the self control to focus in class and on homework?
So, why not advocate the fathers taking a redshirt to be primarily responsible parent (one year for each child) and to work on their emotional availability and literacy?
I absolutely agree that generally fathers should take a larger role in parenting and should be supported in doing that. One critique I would add, and is exactly what Reeves doesn't want spread, is this sentence, "I am wondering if these educational delays in boys have to do with fathers [...]". The important nuance is that boys physiologically develop differently than girls which according to Reeves contribute to the educational gap between them.
Yeah, I’m aware that Reeves' book has some issues with reinforcing evasions of accountability in a way that could hurt boys (and girls).
That claim that boys’ brains physiologically develop later or not at all compared to girls seems like junk science to me.
It”s actually worse than junk science because proselytizing that view is likely itself damaging to the boys development.
Really horrifying to look at how fathers will damage their children’s development out of sheer laziness, isn’t it?
Now that paternity is provable, it seems likely many fathers are going to have to face a lot of anger from their children about this harm, especially as the children become adults and realize how it has left them behind.
"out of sheer laziness"... I would say more out of ignorance.... And may be fearful of the stigma attached to rearing a son who seems less manly or in some way not like them. We have a long way to go to bring our national education level back up to post WWII, especially in the social sciences.
Hormones, specifically estrogen, direct verbal capacity, so young people who have more can listen, write and speak better, so their memory is better. During child bearing years, females usually have more estrogen than men.
“Why Gender Matters” digs into this science and it seems to not be so much about hormone levels, but the ability to “use” testosterone. That said, if gay boys aren’t using the testosterone, it’s not having an effect on their behavior which could result in them doing, “very well in the education system.”
Yes. It's as if we are delt a hand out of a pack of cards. We play with the cards we are dealt. The analogy breaks down because we can develop skills we aren't born with. Women can learn to read map upside down, but it generally takes them much effort.
When my now 17-year-old was 4 and 5, we did two years of PreK. It helped that we started at one school and then went to another. At the time a lot of it was driven by the fact that mom and I were divorcing and we wanted to create space to process that as much as a 4-year-old can make sense of that chaos, but when I look at the difference today, I’m so thankful we did for so many more reasons.
I should add that, intellectually, my kid was then, and remains today, freaking brilliant (and that’s not bias, the kid performs at the 98th percentile without studying). So it’s not about intellectual capability, but non-cognitive developmental reasons.
I found this idea, redshirting, quite dangerous. Studies have shown that delaying education, there is a significant drop in IQ. And plethora of other issues. while the diagnosis is more or less right, boys are not doing well in school. I think the language used is also problematic: "Boys develop more slowly", another way to tell the world that women are the "best" sex (they develop faster!). Boys don't develop more slowly, they develop differently. They have different needs, different strategy to acquire knowledge and maybe different interests.
I think the best solution is to separate boys and girls, from first grade to bachelor's degree. encourage having as many men as possible for boys and teenage boys' education.
I can understand the fear of delaying education, although I think what’s pitched in the book is a couple years of preschool for boys, so you’re not delaying them, you’re just giving them an extra year. Your splitting idea could be super helpful here.
What about a three month or six month offset instead of a full year? My son is high energy/young-for-his-age, and I am very thankful that his birthday came a week after the cut-off instead of a week before. But a second extra year would be too much. I don't want him turning seven a month into kindergarten.
I find this idea very intriguing, though I hope there would be some flexibility in policy to accommodate the outliers, such as my son. At age 3, he had preternaturally unusual self control, at age 4 he tested into a gifted and talented program, and has been running through school curricula two years ahead of grade (that's how his school is set up). Now at 16 years old, he's extremely mature, strategic, and risk averse. He would have missed out on a year of productive learning if he'd been held back.
My daughter was adopted and spent her earliest years in institutional care outside the U.S. She continues to struggle with impulse control, executive functioning, and is way behind her peers on emotional maturity. She would probably have benefited from an extra year before school.
To implement this policy, let's think about how to accommodate the outliers by gender. Either by making red-shirting optional, at parental discretion. Or, create a way for individual kids to test out of the rule.
That holds the boys back more!
A whole year of life?
I'd rather encourage boys to test out of highschool around middle school and start community college.
We need more men in the liberal arts fields to combat feminist sexism.
I know you mean well, but this seems like a condescending "solution".
Nothing personal against you. I like you.
I think you'll make a lot more progress and waste far less time if you stay away from the vile cesspool that is twitter. Nobody there argues in good faith, and using it only makes you dumber with time.
Interesting idea. I think it might not make sense as the first thing to try, as I don't think it addresses the demoralisation of boys and young men, in some ways it affirms it.
I’m never heard the term redshirt, but in Australia its pretty much the norm to start boys later than girls. It became a trend 20 years ago and has continued. Evidence suggests gains for boys in infants/primary but evens out by high school and then you’ve got adult males in high school; the smart ones (like my son) resent the extra year, and those that don’t want to be there cause trouble for everyone. Boys are concentrated at the top and bottom ends, there is a wide range of ability and social skills, whereas girls tend to concentrate around the average. I also don’t see what difference it makes if they’re going to be in early learning/pre-school anyway. Presumably they’d have to repeat kindergarten which seems unfair.
This all makes sense to me, however I hope you put a disclaimer in your book (I hope I can find it one day over here in Portugal), about how we usually are speaking in generalisations, because there are always exceptions. My husband learned to read with the help of a tutor by age four and had read all of Dumasby age nine. So he entered first grade at age six and was hated and taunted and picked on by the bigger kids, who even followed him home from school pelting rocks at him. He was the most kind andpatient man I ever knew. The only people who didn't like him were pretentious snobs.
To me, the world is not two dimensional, but more like one of those wooden round puzzles, which pieces are all different and interlock together, but that's hard to show on two dimensional graphs on two dimensional paper.
See: Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Roadmaps, by two doctors Pease, circa 2001, published in England.
Thank you for writing this post. It validates many suspicions I've had for years!
I wonder what data there is on amount of study and homework time of boys and girls. I suspect boys devote less time on average. This falls into your prefrontal cortex theory to further explain why scores on math and science are closing.
This is my own subjective university experience, but I have found myself, increasingly over time, having to deliberate if its worth casting an opinion -- since many have been squashed by, "this is mansplaining" or "as a white male, you can't...", and so often I hear my male colleagues being readily pathologised for trivial behaviour. I find the idea of boys starting education later due to cerebral developmental differences very interesting, but at the same time, I can already hear a future female academic telling an enthusiastic chap that his opinion is invalid due to a lack of neurological development. That kind of comment would break me.
It's already been studied for decades. Ask any preschool teacher.
Do young boys need to be redshirted or do they (and young girls) need for their fathers to take a red shirt?
Taking a redshirt as a father doesn't mean playing for the Bucs for one more year, in case you're wondering.
It means taking one year per child as primarily responsible parent. This time period roughly matches the time when women are primarily responsible parents during late pregnancy, delivery, lactation.
I am wondering if these educational delays in boys have to do with fathers not modeling that doing the grunt work is important?
Also, emotional availability in fathers is important for children to have emotional literacy about themselves, which provides motivation to learn and grow as well as the self control to focus in class and on homework?
So, why not advocate the fathers taking a redshirt to be primarily responsible parent (one year for each child) and to work on their emotional availability and literacy?
Why delay the boys to indulge bad daddery?
I absolutely agree that generally fathers should take a larger role in parenting and should be supported in doing that. One critique I would add, and is exactly what Reeves doesn't want spread, is this sentence, "I am wondering if these educational delays in boys have to do with fathers [...]". The important nuance is that boys physiologically develop differently than girls which according to Reeves contribute to the educational gap between them.
Yeah, I’m aware that Reeves' book has some issues with reinforcing evasions of accountability in a way that could hurt boys (and girls).
That claim that boys’ brains physiologically develop later or not at all compared to girls seems like junk science to me.
It”s actually worse than junk science because proselytizing that view is likely itself damaging to the boys development.
Really horrifying to look at how fathers will damage their children’s development out of sheer laziness, isn’t it?
Now that paternity is provable, it seems likely many fathers are going to have to face a lot of anger from their children about this harm, especially as the children become adults and realize how it has left them behind.
"out of sheer laziness"... I would say more out of ignorance.... And may be fearful of the stigma attached to rearing a son who seems less manly or in some way not like them. We have a long way to go to bring our national education level back up to post WWII, especially in the social sciences.
It's not junk science. Every early childhood study course covers it, including courses I took in Canada and the USA 40 years ago.
Girls on average start puberty earlier than boys, which includes cognitive changes as well. This is well researched.
Comment on trans boys. I bet there is not enough data.
No. But gay boys and men are doing very well in the education system, there's pretty good evidence for that
Thx for your reply!
But let me ask, how is it that they excel where other males do not?
Hormones, specifically estrogen, direct verbal capacity, so young people who have more can listen, write and speak better, so their memory is better. During child bearing years, females usually have more estrogen than men.
Are you saying that the hormone levels of straight and queer men are different?
“Why Gender Matters” digs into this science and it seems to not be so much about hormone levels, but the ability to “use” testosterone. That said, if gay boys aren’t using the testosterone, it’s not having an effect on their behavior which could result in them doing, “very well in the education system.”
Yes. It's as if we are delt a hand out of a pack of cards. We play with the cards we are dealt. The analogy breaks down because we can develop skills we aren't born with. Women can learn to read map upside down, but it generally takes them much effort.
Thx for your prompt reply! Please provide evidence for that