From the Telegraph:
Boys raised by traditional families ‘do better at school
In a major study, researchers said family structures had a much more significant effect on boys’ early education than school type or even the gender of teachers.
It found that boys were much more likely to misbehave, be excluded from school and go on to achieve low grades after rebelling against “emotionally distant” parents.
The pattern is particularly marked in single-parent families where mothers “invest disproportionately less in their sons or feel less warm toward them” than daughters.
The disclosure comes amid continuing concern over the gender gap at the heart of the education system.
Data shows boys fall behind girls after just a year of school and the gulf widens throughout primary and secondary education.
Girls ‘more resilient’ than boys at school
Girls from single-parent families outperform boys in class because they are less affected by parental input, study shows
Girls appear to be more resilient than boys in preventing problems at home from affecting their behaviour in school, a study into the gender educational achievement gap has found.
The tendency for girls to do better in the later years at school has become increasingly pronounced in the UK in the past two decades. In 2011 the percentage point gap between the proportion of girls gaining A* or A grades at GCSE and that of boys hit a record 6.7, up from just 1.5 in 1989.
Educational researchers have sought to explain the difference through a variety of factors connected to both physiology and environment, including theorising that boys are inherently more resistant to a formal educational system.
But the study, entitled The Trouble with Boys, based on detailed data from 20,000 US children over a decade, did not discover any particular evidence of school-based factors being significant.
Instead, it found boys raised outside a traditional two-parent family were more likely to display behavioural and self-control problems in class and were suspended more often. The data ended when the children were about 14, but suspensions are seen as a strong indicator of subsequent poorer performance in school.
This effect appeared significantly less strong in girls brought up in non-traditional families. By the time the children were 10 or 11 the “gender gap” between boys and girls displaying behaviour problems in school was twice as big for those brought up by single mothers as those from traditional families.
The full title and the abstract of the study’s publication (“working paper”):
The Trouble with Boys: Social Influences and the Gender Gap in Disruptive Behavior
This paper explores the importance of the home and school environments in explaining the gender gap in disruptive behavior. We document large differences in the gender gap across key features of the home environment – boys do especially poorly in broken families. In contrast, we find little impact of the early school environment on non-cognitive gaps. Differences in endowments explain a small part of boys’ non-cognitive deficit in single-mother families. More importantly, non-cognitive returns to parental inputs differ markedly by gender. Broken families are associated with worse parental inputs and boys’ non-cognitive development, unlike girls’, appears extremely responsive to such inputs.
Stunning at the first glance, how the journalists spin the terminology of the paper’s abstract around to the familiar ideological propaganda-terms of feminism: Broken families become “non-traditional” families, single-mother families become “single-parent” families.
Formulated vice versa, stunning that the authors have the guts to use the non-feminist terms hammered into the public’s brains by the governments, the international organizations, any NGOs and all the media since decades.
The core outcome of the study repeated:
Broken families are associated with worse parental inputs and boys’ non-cognitive development, unlike girls’, appears extremely responsive to such inputs.
And brought to unveiled clarity:
Single-mother families are associated with worse parental inputs and boys’ non-cognitive development, unlike girls’, appears extremely responsive to such inputs.
Which means, in a more direct fashion of speaking:
Single mothers are parenting worse than two parents, and sons suffer from it much more than daughters.
In a quotation from the paper in the Telegraph article:
“It is possible that single mothers invest disproportionately less in their sons, or feel less warm toward them,” said the study. “Indeed, we show that single mothers seem relatively more emotionally distant from their sons and are also more likely to have reported spanking their sons.”
In other words, sons need their fathers around to develop the self-control required for success at school. Mothers alone fail to provide what is needed.
Therefore, the family courts denying fathers their parental rights hurt the sons much more than the daughters, as far as their education success is concerned, additionally to hurting the children of both sexes.
Therefore, the politicians who do not legislate shared custody hurt especially the sons in their education and thus in their future opportunities of profession and employment and income.
Therefore, the policies of robbing fathers of their parental rights cause trouble for the sons’ future chances to find a wife and have children, and, by the same token cause trouble for the daughters’ future chances to find a husband of equal or higher social standing, which is the most relevant criterion of their instinctive preference in choosing a mate.
Marrying down is the last resort for a woman, and the chances for divorce are higher in such a case, as both sexes are in conflict with their instincts when she is having a higher education and from that mostly also a higher income than his.
Evicting the father from the daily life of his children hurts not only him and them directly, but indirectly also society, as marriage as well as unmarried parenthood become more difficult to start and families become more unstable.
In other words, the explicit revolutionary goal of feminism and communism since The Communist Manifesto and Engels’ treatise The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, to abolish marriage and the two-parent family in order to liberate women for self-actualization in the workplace and in the political and public arena is drawn ever closer by the patriarchal chivalry or, psychologically speaking, the oedipal delusion of men set up to pedestaling mothers. Which is politically instrumentalized by the global feminist network, dominating the UN, the EU, and all other international bodies and the national governments of allmost all western and westernizing developing countries. The umbrella term for that being “Gendermainstreaming” as governmental directive to be implanted (“implemented”) top-down and across any and all political decisions and administrative regulations.
Most of all, being propagated by terminology and speech codes in all public communication of the governing authorities, so that the citizens forget, for example, terms and concepts like “broken families”. Instead they comply in speech and – as the illusion of the manipulators goes – therefore can no longer think in the original concepts, but believe there are just “traditional” and “non-traditional” families, in other words, reactionary, old-fashioned, outdated families on the one side and progressive, up-to-date, modern families on the other.
The concept of family as such is sought to be reframed and redefined as
The psychical and social disaster for the children and their father, and the decompensation and decadence of society resulting from the political goal of abolition of the family is regarded as irrelevant and being denied and rationalized as a step towards the state of true justice and liberty for all. The disaster for the mothers is attributed to a lack of support from society and remedied by ever greater outsourcing of the maternal tasks to state-sponsored professionals and institutions. In full accordance with the communist-feminist vision of relieving mothers from having to act the mother, and transferring the task of parenting to the state.
From this perspective it is not by chance that the British Labour Party declared 2009 that parents should have their children register for school in the fall after their fourth birthday. And doing so in full face against the recommendation of a scientific committee recommending the direct opposite, namely to postpone formal schooling to the sixth birthday. The background being the British tradition of having children attend a kind of pre-school called Foundation Stage, where they are meant to command basic reading and math and other skills by the age of five.
As the Telegraph writes:
Existing lessons in English, maths, science and humanities should be pushed back by 12 months to give children more time to develop, it is claimed.
In a major report, academics said children responded better to a “play-based” curriculum at a young age and insisted it would not hold them back in later life.
The comments come amid fears that children are being pushed too fast at a young age – undermining their social and emotional development.
The recommendation – in the 608-page Cambridge Primary Review – runs directly counter to existing Government policy.
Labour’s own review of primary education published earlier this year suggested all children should start school in the September after their fourth birthday.
No wonder that children who are forced to stop playing and start studying at far too early an age measure as the most unhappy in a comparison of the 21 most wealthy countries:
Not that there was any hint in the report about the unchristian early pressure to perform.
Interesting the origin of the British exception to European customs for starting school (Telegraph 2009):
The review – carried out over six years – recommended a series of sweeping reforms to the “Victorian” system of education in England.
The existing school starting age was set 140 years ago “to service the demands of industry” and was now outdated, it said.
It was instrumentalizing the children for Mammon, to use a drastic term, sacrificing their natural development in order to gain profit out of them. A dispassionate, inhuman cruelty which seems to characterize the British mentality as such. Which fits with the atrocities of the British family courts, as being protested in such dramatic forms as climbing bridges and towers in Superhero costumes for well a decade to no avail, a recent such action reported by Fathers and Families Site: Tory Minister: Fathers’ Protests ‘Distasteful’.