Visto desde Alemania, 13/07/07
Es asombrosa la conclusión a la que llega el estudio "Not am Mann" (faltan hombres) del Instituto de Población de Berlín, recientemente publicado y recogido en las portadas de la prensa, sobre el éxodo de la mujer en la Alemania del Este a pocos años del vigésimo aniversario de la reunificación alemana.
Desde 1989 un total de 1,5 millones de jóvenes se han trasladado a la Alemania occidental, especialmente mujeres cualificadas, buscando un mejor futuro profesional y familiar. Este déficit de mujeres no tiene parangón en Europa, ni siquiera en las regiones frías del norte de Suecia y de Finlandia.
En muchas localidades deprimidas de la Alemania oriental este fenómeno migratorio se explica por el hecho de que las mujeres están mejor preparadas que los hombres. Sus expedientes académicos son mucho más brillantes que los de sus compañeros varones y, por este motivo, encuentran trabajo con más facilidad en otros lugares más desarrollados. Las consecuencias son, por un lado, un claro descenso de la natalidad y, por otro, la amenaza de una nueva capa social inferior que ha sido denominada "Prekariat" (precariado: véase su relación fonética con proletariado). Dicho segmento de la población lo forman varones que, por ser excluidos de los principales ámbitos de la sociedad (trabajo, formación, pareja...) pasan, a los ojos de la gente, a ser unos inútiles incapaces de mejorar de vida y que, además, se manifiestan más propensos a la violencia y a la participación en grupos radicales.
El quinto capítulo de este estudio merece especial atención al analizar si los varones de la Alemania del Este se encuentran en una crisis de educación y de formación. En 1960 el 37% de los bachilleres con acceso a la universidad eran chicas. Hoy el 54 % de la chicas alcanzan el acceso a la selectividad. Estas cifras –dice el informe– no son sólo el resultado del sistema escolar (la gran mayoría de los colegios son mixtos), sino que también en el proceso de admisión escolar ya se perciben claras diferencias entre chicos y chicas. El 60% de los no aceptados son chicos y las chicas sobrepasan la cifra de los que son aceptados anticipadamente. Los chicos, con comportamientos llamativos más frecuentes, repiten curso con mayor frecuencia. Los resultados de PISA de 2000 y 2003 manifiestan claramente la diferencia de rendimiento escolar: la chicas leen y escriben mejor que los chicos. Es ahora cuando comienza –continua el informe– el análisis sobre las causas de los retrasos de los chicos en el sistema escolar.
Durante mucho tiempo los sociólogos y los psicólogos opinaron que las diferencias biológicas entre los sexos no tenían una influencia significativa en su comportamiento sino que éste era consecuencia únicamente de la educación y del entorno social. Por el contrario, numerosos estudios de los últimos veinte años se manifiestan en otra dirección. El informe cita a Eleanor Maccoby, 2001: Psychologie der Geschlechter. Sexuelle Identität in den verschiedenen Lebensphasen, Stuttgart (Psicología de los sexos. Identidad sexual en la distintas fases de la vida). Estudios comparativos en países industriales, países en desarrollo y observaciones de campo transculturales en algunos pueblos indígenas muestran que la chicas en todo el mundo prefieren juegos inofesivos mientras que en los chicos dominan los juegos motóricos activos y de más interacción corporal. En situaciones de conflicto las chicas tienen una tendencia más proclive al compromiso y al entendimiento mutuo y los chicos se caracterizan por una tendencia al dominio, a la fomación de jerarquías y a conflictos corporales.
Los médicos y psicólogos aluden que los chicos obtienen peores resultados en el colegio porque se adaptan peor a éste y aprenden peor que las chicas. La causa –dice el informe– se encuentra en la anatomía y en el funcionamiento distinto del cerebro según el sexo. También las hormonas juegan un papel importante. La testosterona fomenta en los chicos la concentración en el resultado y no en el proceso, y por eso los chicos se pueden concentrar menos y tienden a comportamientos no razonados que pueden llevar a la violencia.
Las diferencias de chicos y chicas suponen distintas maneras de pensar, de aprender, de comunicar o de competir. Otros estudios atestiguan que los chicos tienen una mayor capacidad de abstracción y que las mujeres tienen una mejor capacidad de expresión y de comunicación. De este modo, las chicas parecen más adeptas al éxito en el colegio pues aquellas aptitudes que les son más necesarias, son precisamente las que tienen más desarrolladas.
Otra componente es que los chicos sufren, si son expuestos a los videojuegos, en sus resultados escolares mucho más que las chicas. El estudio también señala que muchos pedagogos son de la opinión de que en el crecimiento de los chicos los ejemplos de roles masculinos son de primordial importancia. Los padres, pero también los educadores y profesores, deben vivir de un modo varonil que les sirva a los chicos de orientación para su propio desarrollo, que les ponga límites. La realidad es que cada día crecen más chicos sin ejemplos masculinos. En el año 2005 existían en Alemania 2,6 millones de padres solteros y de éstos eran 2,2 millones de madres solteras. El porcentaje de padres solteros ha crecido entre 1996 y 2004 del 17 al 20%, especialmente en la Alemania del Este. A casi un millón de chicos les falta el padre como ejemplo. Cuando llegan al Kindergarten y al colegio apenas encuentran personal masculino y, por eso, se habla de la "faminización del sistema educativo". Desconozco los datos correspondientes en España pero intuyo que nos acercamos bastante a esta situación.
En Alemania el dominio de la mujer es especialmente llamativo en primaria, en la fase en la que los niños desarrollan especialmente sus capacidades cognitivas y fundamentan su futuro escolar y académico. El 86% de los profesores de primaria son mujeres. La preocupación de los pedagogos es que las maestras manifientan poca comprensión ante el comportamiento de los chicos porque, por su propia socialización, desconocen este comportamiento y se muestran poco propensas a sus modos de juego, lo cual aumenta el rechazo de las maestras hacia los chicos. Esto también resulta en que los chicos obtienen peores notas que las chicas. Hay estudios que demuestran que las notas en primaria se basan más en el comportamiento que en el rendimiento intelectual.
Por lo tanto, los padres están en pleno derecho de buscar alternativas a la educación mixta, de modo que se tengan mejor en cuenta las capacidades y cualidades específicas de cada sexo y las lleva a su pleno desarrollo.
NOT AM MANN: http://www.berlin-institut.org/pdfs/not_am_mann.pdf
NOTICIA: http://vistodesdealemania.blogspirit.com/archive/2007/07/13/el-exodo-de-la-mujeres-capacitadas-y-la-marginación-del-varó.html
Recruiting males teachers is a waste of time
By Maralyn Parker, (News.com.au, July 11, 2007)
TRYING to recruit more males into teaching may be worse than a waste of time. According to a new report some male teachers can be bad for boys.
The 140-page report from the education department in England, Gender and Education: The Evidence on Pupils in England, claims male teachers are more likely to treat boys harshly and can have lower academic expectations of boys. Female teachers are more likely to have equal expectations of boys and girls and are less likely to be harsh with boys just because they are boys.
Researchers also found there was little evidence boys and girls had different learning styles - a small bombshell that may prick the pomposity of some high-fee private schools marketing themselves as specialists in boy-style teaching. Researchers also soundly rejected the claim that girls need "less active, less structured, less interactive, less varied pedagogy" than boys. If you are already composing an email - yes there are different styles of learning such as visual, auditory and kinaesthetic (touching, feeling, using).
The report said there are benefits in talking about and using different styles in the classroom. And some students may prefer one style or different combinations. However to be successful learners children need to be able to use all the different styles at different times for different purposes. So any school favouring one style of learning is doing its students a serious disservice. It reminds me of the left brain-right brain fad. We were told we probably favour one or the other - and the associated but very different skills.
Then scientists found the brain did not work so simply, that we used both sides when doing things previously considered either right brain or left brain. It looks like the boy and girls styles of learning are now also debunked. As for single-sex schools and single-sex classes, research remains "inconsistent and inconclusive." Separating sexes for modern languages can be positive for boys and for science and maths, can be positive for girls. But researchers pointed out when a school sets up single-sex classes there is an increased emphasis on teaching which may improve the quality of that teaching.
Also schools will often select their best teachers to take these classes, especially the all-boy classes, which will also affect outcomes. But probably the most significant finding is that the biggest gaps in achievement at school are not between boys and girls but between social classes and ethnic groups. Poor children and black children are the biggest losers. And researchers say that is what the English Government should really be worried about if it wants a clever future.
All I can say is ditto to all of that for Australia.
TRYING to recruit more males into teaching may be worse than a waste of time. According to a new report some male teachers can be bad for boys.
The 140-page report from the education department in England, Gender and Education: The Evidence on Pupils in England, claims male teachers are more likely to treat boys harshly and can have lower academic expectations of boys. Female teachers are more likely to have equal expectations of boys and girls and are less likely to be harsh with boys just because they are boys.
Researchers also found there was little evidence boys and girls had different learning styles - a small bombshell that may prick the pomposity of some high-fee private schools marketing themselves as specialists in boy-style teaching. Researchers also soundly rejected the claim that girls need "less active, less structured, less interactive, less varied pedagogy" than boys. If you are already composing an email - yes there are different styles of learning such as visual, auditory and kinaesthetic (touching, feeling, using).
The report said there are benefits in talking about and using different styles in the classroom. And some students may prefer one style or different combinations. However to be successful learners children need to be able to use all the different styles at different times for different purposes. So any school favouring one style of learning is doing its students a serious disservice. It reminds me of the left brain-right brain fad. We were told we probably favour one or the other - and the associated but very different skills.
Then scientists found the brain did not work so simply, that we used both sides when doing things previously considered either right brain or left brain. It looks like the boy and girls styles of learning are now also debunked. As for single-sex schools and single-sex classes, research remains "inconsistent and inconclusive." Separating sexes for modern languages can be positive for boys and for science and maths, can be positive for girls. But researchers pointed out when a school sets up single-sex classes there is an increased emphasis on teaching which may improve the quality of that teaching.
Also schools will often select their best teachers to take these classes, especially the all-boy classes, which will also affect outcomes. But probably the most significant finding is that the biggest gaps in achievement at school are not between boys and girls but between social classes and ethnic groups. Poor children and black children are the biggest losers. And researchers say that is what the English Government should really be worried about if it wants a clever future.
All I can say is ditto to all of that for Australia.
Gender and education: the evidence on pupils in England
Department for Education and Skills, 2007. (134 pages)
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/genderandachievement/pdf/7038_DfES_Gender_Ed.pdf?version=1
This topic paper draws together a range of evidence on gender and education.
It summarises current statistics on the participation and attainment of boys and girls from the Reception Year to the Sixth Form, placing the findings in an historical context where this is possible. Performance data from international research complement the historical data and strengthen the conclusions on overall trends. Subject choice and attainment are the main foci of the paper but gender differences in areas such as special educational needs, school
exclusions, attendance and bullying are also covered.
A large number of research papers have been written on the gender gap in attainment and this topic paper refers to a selection of these. We ask why there are differences in boys’ and girls’ participation and achievement and examine what strategies are effective in tackling boys’ lower attainment levels.
The paper focuses primarily on gender differences of school-aged pupils. In order to understand gender differences for this age group, it is important to draw on the literature on early childhood, biological and cognitive differences. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to examine this in any detail. Equally what happens at school then determines higher education and career choices but this is not covered here.
An important objective of this paper is to put the gender debate in context by examining the extent of the gender gap and discussing the role of gender in education alongside the role of other pupil characteristics, particularly social class and ethnicity. In addition, the focus is not solely on the concepts of the “gender gap” and “boys’ underachievement” but also acknowledges that, on the one hand, many boys are high attainers and, on the other, that many girls face significant challenges.
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/genderandachievement/pdf/7038_DfES_Gender_Ed.pdf?version=1
This topic paper draws together a range of evidence on gender and education.
It summarises current statistics on the participation and attainment of boys and girls from the Reception Year to the Sixth Form, placing the findings in an historical context where this is possible. Performance data from international research complement the historical data and strengthen the conclusions on overall trends. Subject choice and attainment are the main foci of the paper but gender differences in areas such as special educational needs, school
exclusions, attendance and bullying are also covered.
A large number of research papers have been written on the gender gap in attainment and this topic paper refers to a selection of these. We ask why there are differences in boys’ and girls’ participation and achievement and examine what strategies are effective in tackling boys’ lower attainment levels.
The paper focuses primarily on gender differences of school-aged pupils. In order to understand gender differences for this age group, it is important to draw on the literature on early childhood, biological and cognitive differences. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to examine this in any detail. Equally what happens at school then determines higher education and career choices but this is not covered here.
An important objective of this paper is to put the gender debate in context by examining the extent of the gender gap and discussing the role of gender in education alongside the role of other pupil characteristics, particularly social class and ethnicity. In addition, the focus is not solely on the concepts of the “gender gap” and “boys’ underachievement” but also acknowledges that, on the one hand, many boys are high attainers and, on the other, that many girls face significant challenges.
Conference puts spotlight on boys' education
1233 ABC Newcastle, July 4, 2007
University academics from across the world have gathered in Newcastle for a two-day conference aimed at improving educational outcomes for boys.
The Working with Boys, Building Fine Men conference starts today, and will discuss a range of initiatives, including mentoring programs.
Guest speaker John Andriunas says he will highlight the success of his program which tries to get fathers more involved in their sons' schooling.
"Mums have been the care givers throughout the history of our children and they look after the kids right from birth right through preschool and school," he said.
"We don't want to take anything away from the mothers, but we have found that the educational outcomes, social outcomes for children if their fathers are involved are a lot higher."
University academics from across the world have gathered in Newcastle for a two-day conference aimed at improving educational outcomes for boys.
The Working with Boys, Building Fine Men conference starts today, and will discuss a range of initiatives, including mentoring programs.
Guest speaker John Andriunas says he will highlight the success of his program which tries to get fathers more involved in their sons' schooling.
"Mums have been the care givers throughout the history of our children and they look after the kids right from birth right through preschool and school," he said.
"We don't want to take anything away from the mothers, but we have found that the educational outcomes, social outcomes for children if their fathers are involved are a lot higher."
The New Gender Gap
Business Week, MAY 26, 2003
From kindergarten to grad school, boys are becoming the second sex.
Lawrence High is the usual fortress of manila-brick blandness and boxy 1960s architecture. At lunch, the metalheads saunter out to the smokers' park, while the AP types get pizzas at Marinara's, where they talk about -- what else? -- other people. The hallways are filled with lip-glossed divas in designer clothes and packs of girls in midriff-baring track tops. The guys run the gamut, too: skate punks, rich boys in Armani, and saggy-panted crews with their Eminem swaggers. In other words, they look pretty much as you'd expect...
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_21/b3834001_mz001.htm
From kindergarten to grad school, boys are becoming the second sex.
Lawrence High is the usual fortress of manila-brick blandness and boxy 1960s architecture. At lunch, the metalheads saunter out to the smokers' park, while the AP types get pizzas at Marinara's, where they talk about -- what else? -- other people. The hallways are filled with lip-glossed divas in designer clothes and packs of girls in midriff-baring track tops. The guys run the gamut, too: skate punks, rich boys in Armani, and saggy-panted crews with their Eminem swaggers. In other words, they look pretty much as you'd expect...
But when the leaders of the Class of 2003 assemble in the Long Island high school's fluorescent-lit meeting rooms, most of these boys are nowhere to be seen. The senior class president? A girl. The vice-president? Girl. Head of student government? Girl. Captain of the math team, chief of the yearbook, and editor of the newspaper? Girls...
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_21/b3834001_mz001.htm
Education bias favours females
Jamaica Gleaner, Wednesday July 4, 2007
Failing Education (IV) - Education bias favours females
Peter Espeut (Peter Espeut is a sociologist and executive director of an environment and development NGO)
Jamaica's education system favours females; the systematic bias against men pushes them down and elevates women. Feminists are not comfortable with this thesis, for their instincts demand that in every sphere they are oppressed. But we have to be guided by facts: our education system is designed to fail the Jamaican male.
The first naked fact is that there are more high school places for girls than for boys, therefore more girls will pass the GSAT than boys. Check it out:there are seven high schools for boys only, while there are 14 high schools for girls only - twice as many! The average boys' high school is smaller than the average girls' school and co-educational high schools admit many more girls than boys, sometimes two-thirds girls to one-third boys. So, more Jamaican girls will get to high school than boys.
Men at the bottom of the ladder
So women will predominate at our universities, and men generally will become marginalised. Family life will be affected; women will complain of a shortage of marriageable men; and they will be right! There will be more men at the bottom of the economic ladder than women. And more men involved in crime.
This is not an accident; our educational policies after slavery were designed to protect plantation labour supply, which is why sugar areas like Trelawny, St. Thomas and Vere, and banana areas like St. Mary had no high school admitting boys until relatively recently. If too many boys go to high school, who would cut cane or weed bananas? So it is not so much that the system favours girls as it disadvantages boys.
The two political parties will be quick to say that they did not create this imbalance, partially true since none of the single-sex schools were established by government; it is mostly churches who are to blame; e.g. the Roman Catholic Church today has only one boys' high school but has all of five high schools for girls only! The parties have had all of 45 years to redress the gender imbalance, and they have not!
The gender bias is even more profound! In primary schools boys are often put to sit at the back; the students in front get more attention from the (usually female) teacher. The GSAT takes place at age eleven, when girls are psychologically more developed that boys. If it was a straight competition for high school places based on performance, girls have a big (and unfair) advantage over boys. And in co-educational schools, boys and girls of the same age are put in the same class, which means that girls will always do better, which has negative psychological impact on boys.
In my opinion, for best results, high schools should all be single sex! And then those of each gender can progress at their optimal pace.
So much is wrong with Jamaica's education system, and yet the best the two parties can do in this election campaign is make promises that the low quality education they are offering will be free.
Why don't they promise that they will put in place a system that can teach our children to read properly? Why don't they promise they will create a system where all Jamaican schoolchildren will get a good secondary education up to Grade 11?
Political baptism
Both JLP and PNP have rebaptised 'new secondary schools' into 'high schools', and there is great pretence that the new 'high schools' are of equal standard to 'traditional' high schools. The apartheid continues!
Why don't the parties promise that all secondary schools will be of equal standard? Why don't they promise gender equality? Why don't they promise that high schools will be neighbourhood-based, so students don't have to travel 30-40 miles per day just to get to a 'good' high school? All they should have to do is go down the street! Both parties are to blame for our failing education system, and it doesn't look like it will get better anytime soon.
Failing Education (IV) - Education bias favours females
Peter Espeut (Peter Espeut is a sociologist and executive director of an environment and development NGO)
Jamaica's education system favours females; the systematic bias against men pushes them down and elevates women. Feminists are not comfortable with this thesis, for their instincts demand that in every sphere they are oppressed. But we have to be guided by facts: our education system is designed to fail the Jamaican male.
The first naked fact is that there are more high school places for girls than for boys, therefore more girls will pass the GSAT than boys. Check it out:there are seven high schools for boys only, while there are 14 high schools for girls only - twice as many! The average boys' high school is smaller than the average girls' school and co-educational high schools admit many more girls than boys, sometimes two-thirds girls to one-third boys. So, more Jamaican girls will get to high school than boys.
Men at the bottom of the ladder
So women will predominate at our universities, and men generally will become marginalised. Family life will be affected; women will complain of a shortage of marriageable men; and they will be right! There will be more men at the bottom of the economic ladder than women. And more men involved in crime.
This is not an accident; our educational policies after slavery were designed to protect plantation labour supply, which is why sugar areas like Trelawny, St. Thomas and Vere, and banana areas like St. Mary had no high school admitting boys until relatively recently. If too many boys go to high school, who would cut cane or weed bananas? So it is not so much that the system favours girls as it disadvantages boys.
The two political parties will be quick to say that they did not create this imbalance, partially true since none of the single-sex schools were established by government; it is mostly churches who are to blame; e.g. the Roman Catholic Church today has only one boys' high school but has all of five high schools for girls only! The parties have had all of 45 years to redress the gender imbalance, and they have not!
The gender bias is even more profound! In primary schools boys are often put to sit at the back; the students in front get more attention from the (usually female) teacher. The GSAT takes place at age eleven, when girls are psychologically more developed that boys. If it was a straight competition for high school places based on performance, girls have a big (and unfair) advantage over boys. And in co-educational schools, boys and girls of the same age are put in the same class, which means that girls will always do better, which has negative psychological impact on boys.
In my opinion, for best results, high schools should all be single sex! And then those of each gender can progress at their optimal pace.
So much is wrong with Jamaica's education system, and yet the best the two parties can do in this election campaign is make promises that the low quality education they are offering will be free.
Why don't they promise that they will put in place a system that can teach our children to read properly? Why don't they promise they will create a system where all Jamaican schoolchildren will get a good secondary education up to Grade 11?
Political baptism
Both JLP and PNP have rebaptised 'new secondary schools' into 'high schools', and there is great pretence that the new 'high schools' are of equal standard to 'traditional' high schools. The apartheid continues!
Why don't the parties promise that all secondary schools will be of equal standard? Why don't they promise gender equality? Why don't they promise that high schools will be neighbourhood-based, so students don't have to travel 30-40 miles per day just to get to a 'good' high school? All they should have to do is go down the street! Both parties are to blame for our failing education system, and it doesn't look like it will get better anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)