"everything about our school system is in direct conflict with teen boys adventurous, freedom seeking brains.?

It's a well known fact that more boys than girls prefer a hands-on approach to monotonous lectures even if enough "interactive" material in the form of powerpoint presentations are being used. More often than not, boys have a marked tendency to prefer stimuli that engage their kinaesthetic style of approaching newer concepts.

Brizendine says that she “used to think teen boys were acting bored because it was no longer cool to be excited about anything. But scientists have discovered that the pleasure centre in the teen brain is nearly numb, compared with this area in adults and children.” The reward centre, of the male brain, has become less easily activated. They aren’t acting bored, they are bored and they can’t help it. Brizendine comments that “as many high school teachers know, the teen brain needs to be more intensely scared or shocked to become activated even the tiniest bit.”

A new thought, as discussed in The Male Brain, may be one key. “Even in a conventional video game, when a boy is not actually moving, watching every move of the athlete or video character still gives him a thrill. Moreover, the signal gets sent from his brain through the neurons and into the muscles in his body even if he isn’t moving. If we were to watch the (teens) body and brain with an fMRI camera when he plays a game like Super Mario Brothers, every time he makes Mario jump, we see (his) brain activate the neurons that control his jumping muscles. He would embody the movement he sees even though he’s not really jumping.”

This research enriches current thinking regarding the value of kinaesthetic learning, especially for boys.

http://rethinklearning.tumblr.com/post/2691881376/...

So I'd blame the availability of newer technologies which distract already distracted boys more, and also the sterile study environment presented to them in classes, which advantages more women than men because of marked differences in their learning styles. It's not that boys act bored, they ARE bored.

"Michael Gurian: The whole brain system is different. Boys tend to be more kinesthetic, more hands-on, more spatial-mechanical. They don't tend to sit still to learn as well as girls do."

-It's not an all-over short attention span. It's more limited to sit-down, boring as hell lecture-type classes. As I understand, there is more of a difference between genders at a young (K-6th) age.

There's obviously more to it than that, as I'm sure you'll find out. But this is important. Boys and girls are taught in the same way, but they don't learn the same way. The difference is that females learn better with the paradigm schools use.

And who insists that it's more important to teach females and leave males hanging in the wind...that's right, feminists.

"That boys are in disrepute is not accidental. For many years women's groups have complained that boys benefit from a school system that favors them and is biased against girls. "Schools shortchange girls," declares the American Association of University Women."

This is the main reason my wife and I have decided to homeschool. My kids have already surpassed district standards they would have gotten in school, and the year isn't even half over.

Also, 2 students to one teacher is remarkably better to 24 students to 1 teacher.

Boys are the same as they ever were. It's the schools that have changed.

For starters many schools have eliminated PE. For males, physical exercise is essential not only for bonding and socializing but also burning off energy so that later they can sit quietly and listen to the teacher.

Next--Title IX elminated 4 athletic positions for males for every 1 it created for females. That means that many men lost a valuable connection to school, community, and comradeship. These are the connections that keep young men in school and make them feel like they belong. Further, the mentoring that comes with sports cannot be replaced.

Feminists have re-written many text books and placed their version of history. For instance, in an American History text the Native Americans are called matriarchy and an elaborate system that would allow women to be chief has been created. And yet there is no record of any females ever leading any Native tribe.

Further, some textbook authors are decidedly anti-male. For instance, in my Research Methods course the author fabricates the results of a study that says men are more likely to be violent towards women after watching violent pornography. In fact, the author failed to mention that the increase in violence only occurred when women committed violence against the males for no reason. Absent that attack by the females there was no increased violence from the male subject.

This same author goes on to call males "pathetic" and engage in other stereotypical shaming language throughout the book. He even goes so far as to fabricate results of a study and says that girls benefit more from single sex education when in fact males benefit the most from single sex education.

Then there is the Lifespan course which states that even though men are more likely to commit suicide and commit far more suicide the student should be more concerned about female para-suicide. Para-suicide is suicidal thoughts and unhappiness. Essentially she was saying that women's feelings are more important than men's lives.

After 12 years of being exposed to this kind of bigotry, after having the things you love taken away, it's no wonder many males feel education is not for them. Clearly, the Department of Education is more interested in educating girls and increasing the privileges they gain.

Even in the face of declining male performance no one in authority is willing to take steps to turn things around.

When women succeed then education is doing something right.

When men fail it's because they are losers and not because of bigotry.

To me, boys are funny. They come up with witty was to annoy the teachers, and try to be nice to alot of people. Now about your question, boys have a smaller attention span then girls, therefore lose interest in things quickly, and need a way to entertain themselves. They have a normal mental capacity for the most part, but just can't pay attention to one subject for a long time, like 45 minutes of math would make them anxy.

Da **** you talking about? Men went to very academic structured universities in the 17th century and they did well. Just look at the many scientists and philosophers during that time like Newton, Hooke, Boyle, Locke, Filmer, Hobbes etc. So fricken tired of people who say men can't sit down in one place. **** them and **** Louann brizendine.

well, all i know is that traditional school places emphasis on conformity and memorization skills more than anything else. so kids that don't mindlessly fit the mold or may not have the best memories are already at a disadvantage. schools tend to favor only a few types of intelligences and make everyone else feel useless.

those with energy or creativity all have ADD and need to be tranquilized.

girls tend to do better in this structured environment because they aren't typically as energetic nor are they as likely to engage in as much novelty-seeking behavior.

i'm not putting anyone down, only pointing out the obvious flaws in the current school system.

Lack of intact families and fathers at home.

competition is discouraged in favor of consensus building

aggression and assertiveness, dominance is punished

tasks at which males excel, such as sports & visual-spatial thinking, are discouraged

women are given unfair advantages and special privileges because they sit down then they urinate, not because of anything they have actually achieved. such as female-only awards and scholarships, and special, genitalia-based preferences in coed awards.