This is not the case when comparing them to the previous generation. This is what Clive Thompson’s essay argues about, but instead of directly targeting young people, he blames parents, the society, and social networks. Indeed, when compared to the previous generations, parents and society were stricter. With the arrival of social networks, teens tend to spend more time on it rather than face to face. Because of the impact of the society and parents plus the evolution of new technologies, young people are less and less able to communicate face to face.
As you can see, the system needs to change because its not helping some women at all, its hurting them. Furthermore, I believe that some children are better off with there fathers. When non-custodial fathers are highly involved with their children’s learning, the children are more likely to get A's at all grade levels (2007 National Center for Education Statistics). Some mothers are to busy doing meaningless things, and are not worried about the well being of there children. Highly involved fathers also contribute to increased mental dexterity in children, increased empathy, less stereotyped sex role beliefs and greater self- control (Abramovitch, H. 1997.
Department of Education that show that girls outshine boys in reading, writing, science, math, and have a lot higher educational aspirations. She also gives us data that shows that girls are starting to beat boys in enrolling in college, and that girls are more engaged in academically then boys. She implies that all of this has been happening because the educational doesn’t “favor” boys over girls anymore. I agree with that statement, but I also don’t think that the educational should let boys be “left behind” either. Yes, boys are bad at school; I can say this because I’m a boy and I see everything first hand, my peers are less and less interested in school and college, they often talk about just either dropping out of high school and getting a job, graduating and just work and not go to college or simply join the military.
In this same era, intercollegiate athletics took on different meanings for women students. Educators were confronted with the argument that the rigors of intellectual activity damaged the health of young women, especially the proper growth of their reproductive systems. Educators responded that a carefully monitored exercise program could prevent such harm. Consequently, physical training became an integral part of the curriculum for women. Rather than vigorous sports, the programs entailed mostly mild exercises.
For example, as my female children grew up, I included them on trips to meet with some of my female colleagues who I knew they would benefit from meeting. At first my female children did not respond because of lack of self- confidence, but eventually they learned to bring a pad to take notes. From these times, they found mentors they could contact and ask questions they may never feel comfortable asking mom or dad. It matured them and helped them build high self-esteem, and helped them obtain guidance and support outside of their parents. Second, the parents should develop a “growth mindset” for their females by praising them for effort, concentration, action, and strategies.
He argues that working class parents are less likely to support their children’s intellectual development through reading at home. This could lead to under achievement because it means from a very young age working class children are behind already. Secondly, Bernstein (1975) looked at the difference in language between working class and middle class students. He developed two types of speech codes. One was the restricted code, this consists of a limited vocabulary with short unfinished grammar, and speech would be predicable they may even gesture instead (slang, street language.)
Working class children are less likely to succeed because they are less likely to be found in nursery schools, less likely to go to university and more likely to be poor readers when they start school, more likely to be in lower sets and streams in secondary school, more likely to leave school early, more likely to underachieve at GCSEs and a level, more likely to be excluded and suspended .This is because the middle-class culture children are adequately prepared for school, but it's totally reverse for working-class culture, it basically fails to prepare children adequately for educational success. It is often said that intellectual development is vital in the younger years of a child life, this refers to a child's ability to solve problems and apply concepts and ideas. Bernstein and Young argue that Middle-class families will be able to afford toys that stimulate the mind, books and pre educational essentials, whereas the working class may struggle to buy such equipment, and therefore have a disadvantage compared to the Middle-class family. Language is also associated with a child's progress. Early socialisation is what gives children this manor of speech and Bernstein argues it makes children feel at home, in a school surrounding and allows children to express themselves clearly and efficiently.
For example, boys are more likely to choose design technology and girls are more likely to choose food technology. • Peer pressure – both girls and boys are influenced by their peers. For example, boys are unlikely to do ‘art subjects’ such as Drama and Dance because some sociologists say they threaten masculine identity. • Future career – students may be influenced by future career plans. For example, subjects like ‘Health and Social Care’ and ‘Child Development’ are mainly taken by girls because they want to work in social care.
When looking at the Equal Opportunities Commission’s report Research Findings (1996) by M. Arnot, M. David and G. Weiner (p. 174) that it was indicated that girls seem to be outperforming boys at Ks1 and 2, especially in subjects such as English based on evidence from Standardise Assessment Test statistics. Holland cites Morris (1996) the findings from the National Consortium for Examination Board that 45.1 per cent of girls achieved five or more A-C grades whereas 34.7 per cent boys achieved at GCSE Level. My interpretation of this data and my own experience from working within education is that the boys seem to be underachieving. This shows from our GCSE data in 2011 that girls achieved 57 per cent at 5 or more A*-C in English, Math and Science whereas boys achieved 54 per cent. In my opinion we have to take into account that there are more males on the special needs register.
As we grow older, both sexes endure an incredible amount of pressure from the media to fit into their gender roles. If men show any feminine traits they are considered weak and are often not taken seriously. Have you noticed that society is more lenient on girls if they don’t conform to gender roles than boys? Girls can be “tomboys”, but that’s not necessarily negative, while “sissy” and “pansy” are used as insults for boys. This just isn’t right.