Article Topics

This site was built according to strict accessibility standards so that all visitors may browse it easily.

| Valid HTML 4.01 Strict |Valid CSS

|Level Triple-A conformance W3C-WAI accessible web content |Section 508 Bobby-Approved accessible web content |



|Career Coaching

| Books

| Radio Show|


| About Marty| Blog | Twitter |Press

email iconsend this article to a friend

Our Most Underserved Students: Active, Smart Boys:

By Marty Nemko

by Marty Nemko

When I was a boy, I just could not sit still in class. I was very bored and active by nature, so I would rock my chair back, whisper and write notes to kids, even wander around the classroom--until the teacher yelled, "Martin, sit down!"

This was decades ago. Today, I suspect I would have been put on Ritalin. But in either case, the blame is placed on the smart, active boy, rarely on the schools, which claim to celebrate diversity of learning styles and needs but stop celebrating when it comes to smart, active boys. Indeed, the decade's signature domestic policy, No Child Left Behind, redirects nearly all efforts to educate the lowest achievers.

This, of course, is ironic in that gifted kids have the greatest potential to contribute to society: to cure its diseases, close the racial achievement gap, develop cost-effective solar power, etc.

The unfair treatment of smart, active boys comes from four factors:

1. The widespread abandonment of ability-grouped classes. In most of today's elementary schools, gifted and slow are placed in the same class. This creates more equality--especially racial equality--but the result is that all children receive a worse education. Imagine for example, that you spoke good Mandarin but wanted to become expert. Wouldn't you prefer a class with advanced students rather than one with both beginners and advanced students? Yet today, we don't give gifted kids (or their parents) that choice. We force them into mixed-ability classes, where they learn little and are bored. And because, on average, boys are more active than girls, they more often can't sit still for six hours a day, five days a week, 180 days a year, year after year. Rather than the harder task of accommodating to gifted active boys' needs, countless teachers have urged parents to put these boys, long-term, on Ritalin--a meth-like drug.

2. That elementary school teachers are overwhelmingly female. Today, the percentage is up to 92%, the highest ever recorded. Even if teachers believe they're accommodating to all students' needs, they can't help but tilt their teaching to what appeals to them. Thus, students stories of male heroism are replaced by stories of female relationships and heroines, typically in which an inferior male is shown-up by a wise female. Competition--a prime motivator for boys--is replaced by so-called "cooperative-learning," which usually reduces to the bright doing the slow's work, boring the bright kid and precluding him from learning new things.

3. The media's continuing to perpetrate the myth that females are oppressed and males are the oppressor. For example, they continue to spout these disproven assertions:
-- women earn 79 cents on the dollar compared with men. In fact, for the same work, women earn the same as men.
-- women are underrepresented in high-level positions because of sexism. In fact, as documented in recent well-reviewed books such as Susan Pinker's The Sexual Paradox, women's not being in high-office comes much more from choosing to have a less work-centric lifestyle.
-- the schools shortchange girls relative to boys. (the long-debunked Reviving Ophelia canard.)
-- men abuse women--in fact, studies show that 30 to 52% of severe domestic violence is perpetrated by women.

Thus, the subconsciously or consciously held feeling among educators, policymakers, and the public, is that we need to do more for females than for males, ignoring such statistics that boys are achieving far worse in school than are girls, much more likely to abuse drugs, commit suicide, and drop out of high school, far less likely to graduate from college, much more likely, as young adults, to be sleeping late unemployed on their parents' sofas.

4. Society's bias that says: let's help those with the greatest deficit rather than those with the greatest potential to profit: "Those smart boys will do okay without special help. Let's focus our efforts on the lowest achievers." I deeply believe that such a philosophy will reduce our society to the lowest common denominator, ironically resulting in a worse life for us all. Besides, it simply is unfair for the public schools to not provide at least a marginally appropriate education for all kids, and right now, smart boys get the very least appropriate education.

What do you think? I look forward to reading your comments. Email them to me at or post them on my blog. (This article appears there as well). You can get to my blog by going to

Home | Articles | Career Coaching | Books | Radio Show | Appearances | About Marty | Blog |Press