Stop Harming Children!

The idea of “red-shirting” boys has cycled back once again.

Saturday’s New York Times offered the latest version in a piece on June 14th, full of data and opinions from almost everyone but a 5 year-old boy. That omission was crucial, since little offered by others was worth a farthing. A 5 year-old might have at least offered a fart joke or two.

For the uninitiated, “red-shirting” is the practice of holding children, almost always boys, back a year; beginning kindergarten at 6, not 5. The theory is that boys develop more slowly, thus having a school disadvantage. This practice first gained attention from analyses of athletics, where boys who were old for their grade had greater college and professional success in some sports, notably hockey.

The similarities between hockey and many schools is germane. In either, boys who are somewhat larger are better able to take a bruising.

“Experts” quoted in the piece attributed the renewed interest in “red-shirting” to the increased emphasis on academics in kindergarten and preschool. A few folks observed that maybe, just maybe, “red-shirting” would be unnecessary if school policy was better aligned with nearly everything known about learning and child development. But alas, it is not.

It bears noting that school policy is not particularly good for girls either. But they, perhaps by dint of genetic predisposition, are better able to navigate archaic traditional practices, having been born with fewer ants in their pants and a greater capacity for compliance and self-control.

I’ve written extensively, as have many others, about the growing problems for boys in school. It’s tempting to do so again, but one lesson I did learn as a young boy is the damp futility of pissing into the wind.

Less attention is paid to the issues related to girls and school, in large part because they seem to be succeeding. Even by the metrics of college and professional school, girls are eating the boys’ lunches. (Not a bad idea in a country with too many eating disorders among young women.)

Having just attended two theater productions featuring boys and girls of these ages, I’ll delightedly stipulate that boys and girls differ, not universally, but generally. The production of Avengers had a cast of nearly all boys. The plot was irrelevant. It was all combat (little contact) for 45 minutes. As the head of a school for 19 years, this is not surprising. Boys love combat. Girls love planning combat, which is what I think they do in those quiet little clusters that look so innocent.

I am unaware of any conclusive research that identifies these differences as due solely to nature or nurture. “Both” seems most likely.

Peg Tyre’s seminal 2008 book The Trouble With Boys was among the first thorough looks at how schools and school practices harm boys. Nothing much has changed since then; in fact it has gotten worse. Coincidentally, Denise Pope’s book Doing School; How We Are Creating a Generation of Stressed-Out, Materialistic, and Miseducated Students was also published in 2008. Pope’s book also demonstrates how schools and school practices harm boys and girls. Nothing much has changed since then; in fact it has gotten worse.

17 years since identification of problems. 17 years with no progress.

So forgive me when saying the “red-shirt” debate leaves me stone cold. The problem is not when boys (or girls) start school. School is just bad for them in different ways.

The consequences for boys are clear from the evidence. Boys drop out more often. They go to jail more often and college less often. They score better on tests if they are older in 3rd grade (duh). But the idea that tinkering with entry point will fix it is absurd. There is also evidence that boys from wealthier families suffer fewer consequences (duh again).

The consequences of practices that negatively impact boys are most severe in poor communities of color. So schools in these communities do more of the things that exacerbate the problem. Strict discipline. Severe punishment. Silence. Sitting straight and still.

The relationship between these archaic traditional practices and the effects on girls and women are less clear and but equally important.

The fact that compliance is easier for girls does not mean it is good for girls and it should not be a precondition of success. Self-control may be easier for girls, but when over-emphasized, it can be maladaptive, leading to anxiety, eating disorders and depression.

Traditional educational practices are failing boys and girls.

As I and so many others have argued for years, the solution to a problem is never to do more of the things that caused the problem; more stress, more testing, more competition, more developmentally inappropriate expectations, more inappropriately punitive discipline. Yet that’s what is being done. Arguing over “red-shirting” is an absurd distraction.

We need a progressive revolution. Shameless, I know, but if you wish to be equipped with comprehensive arguments for the changes we need, check out my book.