Why are boys underachieving in the classroom?

Boys usually underachieve in education because they are more susceptible to peer pressure and to become truants. This is supported by the growing number of gangs in the UK and anti-social behavior orders against groups of boys aged from 8 through to 18 years old. This peer pressure is overpowering the need to be educated because schooling is becoming less involved with challenging the student and promoting education but politics, marks and teacher’s fears of what students might do with security programmes.

It is necessary that this approach be altered or boys will continue to underachieve. As this following discussion will illustrate it is necessary that education is promoted and fun and interesting. Also teachers should not focus an unequal treatment of boys, just because they will most likely cause problems in the classroom. It is this treatment that makes boys angry with the education system and promotes them to join gangs. The following section will discuss how boys make up the majority of gangs in the UK and how the treatment of boys in the education system cause them to lose interest and join gangs etc and underachieve. It will do this by analyzing the data concerning boys joining gangs, which indicates they are more susceptible to peer pressure. Then it will discuss equality and rights and how it is necessary for the present legal system to afford children rights of equality in the education system. It will then look at the arguments that focus on the fact that it is the education system’s inadequacies that cause underachievement. Finally, this discussion will conclude by discussing necessary actions to ensure that boys needs and education is promoted.

Boys are more likely to fall to Peer Pressure and Join Gangs of Thugs/Hooligans

In the UK because the nature of gang membership is according to factors, such as age, area of their residence and educational attendance or level, i.e. as the study made by Sander’s  revealed the Police in London were unable to associate with the definition of the colourized gang, i.e. known as gang proper, rather gangs were multi-cultural and complex, i.e. vague associations of boys that grouped together and committed criminal act.   In addition there is another source of data concerning gangs which is Stelfox  which is based upon data collected from police forces throughout the UK on the beliefs of whom police officers believe were gang members. The result was a lot more varied and was farther away from the stereotypical image portrayed by the US and Greater Manchester Police forces, where it was computed that 66% of gangs were of the white majority, 25% were multi-cultural and only 9% were of a minority single race group , rather gangs were primarily boys from the age of 12 through to 20, who were known truants. Closely tied to these gangs is anti-social behavior; however the members were primarily impressionable boys that were subjected to peer pressure and disillusionment in their school and leisure life that they joined the gang to be cool. In addition if boys are being isolated in schools be teachers as trouble makers this causes these boys to gang up, rebel against the education system by not attending and if they do attend causing problems out of fear and anger. This is basic history of many gang formations, if one considers the source of black street gangs in the USA, which arose from their isolation in the 50, 60s and 70s by the criminal justice system. This is easily the occurrence in the UK in respect boys in the classroom, i.e. there actions are out of fear and anger to their treatment in the classroom.

Rights & Equality

To understand the extent that the current education system is disadvantaging boys is trough stereotyping as young hooligans or uninterested in learning. This means there needs to be substantive legal rights that are afforded to children in order to ensure that they are treated equally in the classroom and not as second class citizens. Therefore one must understand there is a difference between a mere legal right and an inherent (also known as substantive) right. Hohfeld has been the most significant jurisprudential thinker to discuss the difference between the varying types of rights. The focus of Hohfeld’s analysis of rights is from an analytical perspective; the main aim of Hohfeld’s work was to clarify exactly what rights are. Hohfeld’s analysis of rights is split into four different categories which are; claim-right; privilege; power and immunity. These rights have been put together into a grid of entitlements  which enables one to understand the nature and content of rights; which the individual has in varying degrees. It is this clear and precise method that makes Hohfeld’s analysis fundamental to rights interpretation within legal arenas. This exploration is going to argue that this exposition of rights is essential to jurisprudence and understanding the nature of rights. Under English law Hohfeld’s analysis clearly expresses how varying degrees of rights are contained under the Human Rights Act 1998 and do not conflict with parliamentary sovereignty. As Helen Fenwick discusses:
“Under Hohfeld’s view… it becomes clear that, traditionally, most freedoms in the UK were merely liberties; one did no wrong to exercise them, but there was no positive duty on any organ of the state to facilitate them… When the Human Rights Act 1998 came fully into force… many Hohfeldian liberties became rights in Hofeldian terms since… public authorities have been laid under a positive duty to respect them” .
 Hohfeld’s analysis is that the confusion over the nature of rights has been effectively eliminated. In contrast to the controversies in theorists such as Dworkin , Kymlicka , Kant  and MacKinnon , it does not get trapped into confusing the nature of rights with the justification of rights. If one applies this to problems concerning gender; discrimination; animal; and environmental rights one could actually apply a type of right in order to rectify the legal and moral inequities. Legal and political philosophers have gotten too tied up in justifying rights, that they have confused the meaning of right. Hohfeld has provided an interesting tool in order to level the playing field, because the question concerning the equality of rights is no longer an issue. Instead Hohfeld’s analysis allows for different right-elements to be applied in different situations. Therefore Hohfeld’s analysis can be applied to both legal analysis and moral quandaries, which means that one in addition to clarifying rights can use this analysis as a tool to justifying rights.
    Hohfeld was very humble in his aims for his analysis of rights, because it has provided more than a tool to clarify rights. For example if one applied this problem to media law where there are conflicts in the right to privacy and the freedom of press, these rights possibly fall into the categories of immunity; claim-right; and privilege The problem is that they are competing rights and if one applies the level of right, also to the specific facts then the confusion that has happened between courts  would be a lot less likely. In short Hohfeld’s analysis has taken out all the moral quandaries in the nature of rights; and has provided an analytical method to apply to both moral quandaries and the justification of rights This will become more apparent in the following chapters.  In relation to absolute human rights or substantive rights then these are immunities which the government cannot interfere with; however a mere legal right is a privilege whereby the government has provided disability rights, but there is no need to provide these rights and may be taken away if in the government’s interest. Therefore this illustrates the importance of making boys rights substantive rights in the same way women need them in the workplace. Also another problem is the current education system which home school advocators argue are hindering children because of stereotypes and peer pressure of a small minority of boys in the class room. Franzosa, on the other hand, focuses on the fact that public schooling is important for social development; however it is greatly limited especially in the respect of treating students equally and ensuring that students learn rather than fall foul to peer pressure and bullying, which causes students to underachieve. As noted earlier boys are more likely to underachieve because of peer pressure to play football or join a gang.

Holt v Franzosa

Holt proposes that it is the void of institutionalism of education that impedes social development . In addition Holt argues that home study teaches children about individualism and enhances their respect and understanding and human rights . However there are critics of Holt’s proposal and argue that such schooling teaches children that their individual needs are more important than the larger society and impedes the goals of democracy.  Yet a question of social development in the modern world is inherently tied into children’s understanding of human rights and respect for the individuals; as well as adherence to law and governance in respect to promoting a civil society. However if home schooling was eliminated then the rights of the individual would be ignored and a move towards institutionalism and a void like understanding of humanity and social development would be created. Also if one connects such arguments to the essence of humanity, the best method for education and development of one’s intellect should be followed, which is an objective goal. Also the argument from Franzosa is purely a westernized view of education and the combating views of democracy and individualism may not be appropriate in all cultures. Therefore this causes one to refer to cultural relativism, but as the previous argument shows individualism and human rights are present in all cultures. In short home schooling can aid children to respect and promote individualism and human rights within the context of their culture, rather than the objective, anti-social institutions of modern education. The problems of the anti-social system will be highlighted in the following discussions; as well as illustrating the problems with the development of children socially. This has resulted in a situation where; children are intimidated and bullied by other children’s anti-social behaviour; children lose the value of learning and the promotion of their intellect; parents become criminally liable for their children’s truancy even if they take all reasonable steps to promote attendance; children take guns into school and murder their peers on the masses; children are not taught to respect other’s human rights because these rights are eroded by the institution they attend; cultural learning and religion is eroded by a so called value-neutral approach, which in fact promotes westernized ideals; and the fairness and justice do not play apart in this institution. Therefore maybe Holt is right in his promotion of home schooling as an effective remedy for the problems in children’s social development.  Franzosa argues that this argument is too simplified and a more complex, multifaceted approach to institutional education is necessary.
Holt's advocacy of a single solution to the multiplicity of problems we now face in education is naïve and misleading. Further, the social thesis he uses to support that solution signifies a retreat from any collective consideration of educational ideals and a dismissal of the idea that communities have any educational responsibilities to their members.

Conclusion

Therefore it is necessary that there is a joint action from the teachers, police, social workers and the government to make education interesting and not a punishment. As well as ensuring that children are treated equally, i.e. boys are not discriminated against purely because they are boys. The main problems as indicated by Franzosa is that it fails to educate equally and at different levels, this is because the education is stretched and run like a business rather than a place of education. This will cause impressionable boys to be interested and integrated rather than excluded and isolated. In turn this will make it less likely that they would join gangs, goof around or not apply themselves in the classroom. In other words, the education system needs to make it cool to go to school for boys; rather than penalize just because of their sex, which makes them angry and causes them to group together, create gangs or loose association of boys who create trouble. Therefore a very important aspect of ensuring that boys do not underachieve is to afford children a right to education and to be treated equally.