A few conversations that I've had recently have made me realize that I probably have quite a high pain threshold.  I tend to dismiss a lot of discomforts, pains and aches that seem more notable to others.  I don't complain about rooms that are hot or cold, drafts, and most body pains (other than headaches) as I just don't seem to notice them or have them register to me on a significant level.  I think that this is the result of two things. 

First, I've done a lot of serious hiking.  I can remember many instances, whether it be hiking to the top of a peak in New Mexico, the bottom of the Grand Canyon in Arizona, or the Tobermory stretch of the Bruce Trail in Ontario, where I had to push myself well beyond any comfort zone.  Hiking up switchbacks, you learn not to look up and see how far you actually are from the top.  You just keep going, often telling yourself you need to stop, but continuing to put one foot in front of the other because you know you have to.  Nobody's going to carry you.  The campsite, the car or whatever is not going to magically appear any closer.  Reality wins.   Pushing through that kind of limitation forces you to just put aside the discomfort and, ultimately, not give it any power over you. 

The second factor that I think has resulted in a higher pain threshold is the meditation practice in which I'm engaged.  Like the hiking, meditation is very much a matter of pushing through and setting aside distraction.  It is a single mindedness and concentration which allows you to derail distractions so that they don't have power over you.

Between these two practices, I feel that I've developed a very useful characteristic.  I would recommend both as worthwhile challenges, and I would encourage parents and youth to not avoid challenge and discomfort.  Living a protected life makes for soft people with low thresholds when facing many of  life's adversities, not just pain.  Callouses, whether physical or mental, produce resilience, -and that's one of the most important characteristics that anyone can acquire. 

I'm partial to killer hikes and meditation, however I'm sure that similar results can be gotten from some sports activities or other endeavors.  Whatever it is, though, it has to be unforgiving.  You have to have a real reason for not quitting.  Unfortunately, as shown by the Toronto Maple Leafs, sports activities and teams don't always yield the same harsh consequences if you fail as does other things, like dieing on the side of a mountain if you don't finish the hike. 

This relates to the articles which I think will end up being below this.  (Not quite sure how this Blog program will enter it.)

After wrting this I came across another excellent series of articles in The Globe & Mail about the five main reasons that boys are underachieving.  One of them is titled "The feminization of education."  Check it out.

HERE

     “The War Against Boys” was the name of a book by Christina Hoff Sommers, published in 2001.  That’s a while ago, but its relevancy does not seem to have faded, based on reports published in the Globe & Mail, Macleans and highlighted on the news over the past few weeks.
     These recent reports point to a broad range of underachievement among males in everything from kindergarten to university.  Problem behaviour, special needs and below average achievement scores in boys seem to be endemic in schools.  Boys are reluctant readers.  Fewer boys than girls are now being successful in high school and entering university. 
     Twice as many boys repeat a grade as do girls.  As a teacher I can tell you with fair reliability that there are just as many girls as there are boys deserving of failing a grade, even if my experience is that this is almost never considered as an option in elementary schools.  In the 1990’s many studies pointed at girls as having lower self esteem and success in schools.  In reaction to this and the feminist movement of the last quarter century, adjustments were made to the education system to promote a more girl-friendly system.  Textbooks and guidance programs were tailored to girls to be sure that female success was highlighted.  While a lot of this was necessary and productive, an over compensation led to a gender prejudice in schools, one result of which was that it was less inclined to repeat (fail) girls.  Behavioural objectives and Learning Skills were tailored to girls and emphasized in classrooms. 
     To put it simply, boys were told that in order to be successful they had to act more like girls.  I know that many of my female educator friends will say “That’s because girls are just better.”  I don’t think that it takes too much thought to identify that as a gross oversimplification.
     A good example of how this works was seen about 10 years ago when my school had a contest for students to design a new mascot for the sports teams.  The theme was Bulldogs.  The winning drawing showed a great rendition of a bulldog with a spiked collar.  The female staff (and I say this confidently because the minority male staff definitely did not concur) insisted on removing the spiked collar because it seemed too violent.  The boy who designed the figure, having been appropriately castrated, did not offer any other artwork, nor did he feel inclined to participate in any other school activities. 

(Continued below.)

      If you look at reading, for example, you see the reality in a microcosm.  As a former Intermediate teacher, I know the challenge of getting adolescent boys to read.  If you look at the Facebook preferences of many boys, you see under “Favourite Books” the simple statement “don’t read!”.  What has created that attitude?  Having talked to a lot of boys, I have to conclude that one thing that causes it is that reading is perceived as something that girls do, not boys.  Reading has become feminized, partly because it involves prolonged periods of inactivity, partly because the boys who do read are often seen as nerds, and partly because the books that are promoted in schools and often read aloud to students in primary and junior classes are girl books, chosen for their “appropriate content”.  -Appropriate in this case meaning that the character behaves like a girl, or at least has no strong male characteristics such as aggression or competitiveness. 
     There are cases where I have been able to get adolescent boys to read, in some situations where I’ve had to buy additional copies of a book to avoid fights.  Some examples of books that strongly motivated boys to read are “Ender’s Shadow” by Orson Scott Card and “The Knife of Never Letting Go” by Patrick Cress.  What made these books different?  They were hard hitting, with tastefully presented elements of violent conflict or (in the case of “Youth In Revolt”) budding sexuality.  (Let’s face it, one of the most common stereotypes of male teenagers reading is “letters to the editor” in Playboy, under the covers, with a flashlight.)  Many of these books would not be the first choice for inclusion in libraries, especially by predominantly female librarians and elementary teachers.  But seeing non-reading boys walk down a school hall between classes, bumping into people because their noses are buried in a book, should count for something.  Personally, I have to say that I learned to read as a kid from comic books which presented me with a strong, advanced vocabulary and complex themes, framed in action and fantasy.  The formula still works.  Look at Harry Potter. 
     Some people have advocated the creation of gender segregated schools to solve the problem.  Reports from the trial schools that have been established seem positive, but more research and inspection is probably warranted.  Certainly this
would relieve the need to present two radically different learning styles to students in the classroom.  But, by itself, it is not going to be the answer.
     Ironically, boys are currently suffering from the same issues that were facing girls 25 years ago.  As one article stated, if it were girls, or an ethnic group that was lagging behind so significantly, it would not be tolerated.  With girls, the entire attitude towards education shifted to accommodate them (which was in many ways a good thing).  As is so often the case with educational policy, though, the pendulum seems to have swung too far to the other extreme, creating a system which clearly and unambiguously does not benefit the male student. 

     Here's an interesting looking web site.  I haven't had a chance to look through the whole thing, but what I've seen looks like it asks some penetrating questions.
http://www.boyslearning.com.au/

No, it's not me, although I just notice that it's another Peter W.

     It must be Halloween.  With the season comes a new crop of violent and scary horror flicks.  In lockstep with that comes a new study reportedly showing a connection between violent movies/games and consequences in teenagers, with the understood conclusion that such games and movies are detrimental to general behaviour. 

When I leave an action movie, especially one that has car chase scenes, I feel an exhileration when I get into the car to drive home.  I feel like I should be speeding through the streets and driving aggressively.  Do I do it?  No, not usually.  Do I feel the same a half an hour later?  No, not at all.  The "rush" which may have been excitement, or adrenaline or may have been some kind of cognitive push, or (as this study suggests) an overstimulation of a specific part of my brain, Has faded away with no evidence at all that there is permanent or long term behavioural change. 

If you look carefully at this and other similar studies, -and, as you know, I always encourage that any studies and statistics be carefully examined-, you see that there is no mention of long term behavioural change in the subjects.  The study points to brain activity and hormonal changes during and immediately after engaging in violent media.  There is, in fact, no measurement at all of behaviour.  Therefore, there should be no conclusions about behaviour, other than what the teenage boy may do during the participation in these media.  Also, I would suspect that you would find similar physical reactions to similar aggressive sports, such as hockey, where on ice fights are not uncommon.  (In fact, the physical and probable long term effects are likely to be even stronger in sports because it is direct physical engagement wrapped in a way of life that extends beyond the ice rink.)

It is possible and likely that the violent movie or game has stimulated a measure of excitement and engagement, which is definitely going to produce heightened biochemical and neurological activity.  I used the word "rush" above, and that is at least a major part of what is happening here.  To infer more, is just that, -an inference.

In order to conclude anything about long term behaviour, you have to measure long term behaviour.  That's not likely to happen, because psychology ethics is not going to allow you to randomly divide a group of teenage boys into two groups, then routinely expose half of them to violent media in order to measure long term behaviour, like whether they get into more fights or engage in criminal activity.  But any other kind of study has got to admit that their conclusions are highly suspect.  Studies that correlate hours of violent gaming to aggressive behaviour cannot prove causality.  They have no way of proving whether the behaviour is the result of the gaming or the gaming is a result of the behaviour. 

I think most teenagers have the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality.  It's called, achieving the "age of reason".  Those teenagers who become over stimulated by violent media, are violent in their predisposition already and are going to find an outlet for that urge one way or another.  It is in the area where the distinctions between fantasy and reality are blurred where we have to be really careful (like aggressive sports or media that masquerade as real life).  Desensitization from watching the news and seeing the parade of corrupt politicians, religious leaders, military officers, etc, does more to desensitize morality in a teenager than playing any video game. 

     I saw Waiting For "Superman" yesterday, the Guggenheim film about the state of education in the U.S.  This is a documentary, like his previous film An Inconvenient Truth.   From the general hype, I really expected more.  While it was a pretty damning condemnation of the American educational system, it came across more like a TV special than a feature film.  It often seemed unfocused and offered few real solutions. 

     Two things need to be said to put this film into perspective for Canadians.  Firstly, this is truly about the American system.  While there may be a few parallels, largely there is little similarity to our situation up here.  (Not that we're perfect or don't have our own difficulties.)

     Secondly, the primary culprit highlighted in the movie was the Teachers' Unions.  Again, I don't think that this applies to Canada or Ontario the same way that it does in the States.  Tacher bashing is such a popular pastime that I can see viewers quickly concluding that we have the same irrational unions up here.  We don't.  Teacher federations in Canada do act to protect teacher jobs, as any union or federation does, but it is possible to fire a teacher.  I have personally seen it happen with the joint cooperation of federation and employer.  (Again this is not to say that some scrutiny might be advisable here as well.)  Also there are teacher evaluation with consequences, all-be-it they are generally considered a bit of a joke in providing accurate assessment. 

     The best part of the film was near the end when you saw the young students who had been spotlighted in the film, waiting to see whether they would be lucky enough to be selected for enrolment in the charter school system.  Selection has to be done by lottery.  As you watch the joy in the eyes of those who won, and the tears in the eyes of those who lost, you can't help but wonder at system and a country where children who want to go to school so badly are forced to rely on a lottery in order to get decent education.  You also can't help but wonder about other children who take education for granted and don't appreciate the opportunities that they have. 

This film gets a B-

     Well, it's back to school time, so it's no wonder that a few typical issues poke their heads up at this time of year.  Things like year round schooling.  Or one of my favorites, school uniforms.
      This week, TV and radio stations have been claiming that 73% of those polled are in favour of students being required to wear school uniforms.  Being one of those students who helped stage protests in high school to win students the right to wear shorts, I'm obviously not too fond of that idea.  Let me explain why.
      1. It is part of adolescent psychology for students to want to express their individuality.  Surely there are lots of ways they can do that, but the simplest is through fashion.  Denied that method of self expression, young people will seek out others, some of which may be positive and others probably not so much so.  I feel that mandating uniforms says something about the institution of school, and I wouldn't blame students for feeling that this is yet one more attempt to turn them into drones. 
      2.  Is there a study anywhere comparing public schools with and without uniforms?  Proper studies!  Don't compare students here with those in Australia, or public school students to private school students.  A good study would be comparing Public High Schools to Catholic High Schools.  I don't think this has ever been done to examine a range of criteria that could include behavior, theft and (above all) grades.  While it may not have been done, during my many years as a teacher I've been able to observe and have had colleagues comment on the difference between the two schools, and the Separate system does not out looking very angelic!  One of the main reasons often cited for wanting uniforms is improved behavior or reduced theft.  There is, however, no evidence to indicate that this is true.  (Please feel free to enlighten me if I'm wrong.)
      3.  The timing of this poll is a little suspect.  Why not do it in February or April.  Why do it now, when many parents have just spent a fortune on clothing for their kids.  In the interest of good statistical analysis, it shouldn't be done at a time when parents may have an exposed nerve about the expense and give a knee-jerk reaction.
      4.  Another reason for advocating uniforms is the provocative way in which many teenager (especially girls) dress.  I will readily admit that there is a problem here, but mandating uniforms is not only overkill, but is a cop-out.  Schools and Boards of Education have established dress code standards which are quite capable of dealing with the problem.  Enforcing that code should regulate clothing in a common sense way.  Administrators, though, are often not comfortable dealing with specific issues, and so it may be simpler for them to paint everyone with the same brush.  In addition, regulating what teenagers wear to school is the responsibility of the parents.  Instead of dealing with apparel issues as a parent, are they once again trying to shuffle this responsibility to the schools.  Deal with it!!  Not only is it a parent responsibility, but it may actually lead to some authentic interaction whereby standards and ethics may be communicated.  Mandating fashion totally side steps this.  Do you support the parent who forbids their child to listen to any contemporary music because some of it is bad, or who bans TV totally? Or the parent who completely forbids all sweets or junk food?   Such children, from my experience, never have to make judgments and decisions for themselves, and as a result are much more prone to excess when they become older and independent.   

    Teachers have a unique perspective on people.  No other profession has such intimate contact with a large number and variety of individuals, both students and families.  Plus, the contact tends to be longitudinal, meaning that often you see development over many years.  More than doctors or lawyers, where contact is narrow and fleeting, teachers are in a position to observe, digest and comment on social trends. 

    This week the decline in hockey enrollment by Canadian boys became a news item.  It seems that over the past decade the number of boys actively playing hockey has dropped below 10%, and the Canadian Hockey Association is wondering why.

    As a teacher who has watched families engage and disengage from hockey, I think I can provide a pretty simple answer.  Hockey takes itself too seriously and has become this big mega-production.  Even recreational players have weekends away at tournaments and multiple games per week, some in the early hours of the morning.  This creates both economic and scheduling stress.  Boys who are better players and who graduate to "rep" teams are even under more stress, with elaborate tournaments all over N. America, and the expectation that missing a game is a cardinal offense because the team has to take precenence over family, school and being a kid. 

    The group that we've come to view as "hockey boys" are unable to do anything else in their lives.  I can personally think of several boys I've taught in the past 10 years whose hockey schedules were so stressful that it was hard for them to stay awake in class.  As a youth group leader, trying to get boys invlolved in outdoor wilderness and camping initiatives, more often than not, a boy's participation in hockey will eliminate the possibility of his participating in any other activities.

    In my 30+ years of teaching, I've known many boys who were great hockey players and who had realistic dreams of professional hockey careers.  They put in the time, were seriously scouted, ...and I can't point to one who was successful.  Perhaps if the hockey clubs didn't take the whole thing so seriously, more parents and boys would enjoy getting involved.  Reduce the expense and the time committment, making it a game that can be played just for fun.  That's the way to reach more people!

   Ya, I did say something about shrinking brains a few days ago.  The comment came from a great article in the September issue of Discover magazine, called "The Incredible Shrinking Brain". 
    It states that , after increasing in volume for a million or more years, over the last 20 00 years it has actually shrunk by a significant 10%.  The data has been replicated across gender and across every continent where paleoanthropology has been able to do comparative studies. 
    One of the explanations provided reminds me of the movie, "Idiocracy" (2006, by Mike Judge) which suggests that selective breeding in our culture favors the unintelligent, as they are more likely to reproduce in larger numbers than the wealthy or more intelligent.  In the movie's story, the main character is accidentally sent into hibernation as part of an experiment and wakes 500 years later to find the world populated with stupid people. 
    This theory states that in the past 20 000 years humanity has had to use it's brain less to insure survival, as communities and civilization make life easier.  Civilization requires less problem solving, less memory and less need for people to be generalists in their range of skills.  Hence, less need for brain power and volume.  Oh, but you protest that our society is far more complex and our brains must be far more sophisticated to have created all the wonders of the modern world.  That may be true, but when it comes right down to it, how many people really understand the way things work?  If the top 10% of our society's brain power were to drop dead tomorrow, it would not be long before our society deteriorated to a medieval state.  How many people out there know how an electric motor works, never mind how to build one?  How many people even know how to change the oil on their car?
    Another interesting fact from this article is that it claims that if Cro-Magnon cave men had been raised with the same education and toys that we have enjoyed, they would likely be just as smart, if not smarter.  Our civilization and technology is an accumulated event, with each generation building on the achievements of the previous one.  We've not become smarter over the past 20 00 years (in fact, the article suggests that we may be actually dumber), and a modern human's civilization is totally a product of his environment.  Without the benefit of modern technology and social structures, we would quickly degenerate into savages.  (Hence the idea of "a thin veneer of civilization" that I mentioned in the "Girl Next Door" review.  Or "Lord of the Flies".)
    This idea also brings to mind arguments by Jon Young at the Wilderness Awareness School, that how much of our brain that we actually use is determined by the amount of time we spend outdoors.  He says that the peoples that exhibit the greatest efficiency in brain use on this planet are the Bushmen of the Kalahari, because they are constantly struggling for survival.  Our safe and protective environment, with safety codes that allow crippled or blind people to navigate in most places with minimum difficulty, does not encourage problem solving or brain use.  In his book, "Last Child In The Woods", Richard Louv claims that we are producing a generation with "nature-deficit disorder".  Modern society is discouraging children from experiencing the outdoors, branding it dirty and dangerous.  The result is obesity and attention deficit, ...and yes, less brain use, which will lead to decreased size, one way or another.  (Evolution doesn't work that way?  I beg to differ, but that's a different story.  Besides, the evidence to the contrary is evident from the past 20 000 years.)

I was recently dragged to see "Grown Ups" the movie with a bunch of adolescents.  I found the movie to centre around a bunch of friends who were constantly bickering with each other, hurling insults and what the kids call "burns".  It was a thoroughly unpleasant film, but one which made me look around at my company and conclude that for many of them this was their life.  In my class over particularly the last year, in my youth group and in the smaller groups I had been working with at summer camp, I had to come to the inescapable conclusion that many (though not all) took great joy in endless insults, hurts and just generally being nasty to each other.  It is an epidemic. 

A friend at camp added that many of the current TV sitcoms, such as "Two and a Half Men", have exactly the same tone to them.  I don't watch sitcoms, so I have to take his word for it.  If however that is the case, it begins to explain a lot.  I've always said that the biggest influence from TV on young people is not the violence or sex.  It is the behaviour that they view on these sitcoms, many of which have main characters and stars close to their own age.  They are ordinary people in ordinary situations, and so they become powerful role models displaying "ordinary" behaviour.  Children come to view these behavioural offerings much more credibly than they do the violent or graphic scenes.  I think most children can filter out and recognise the irrelevance to their own lives of serial killers and such.  But the sitcom sneaks up on them and hooks into their sense of normalcy. 

Let them watch "Criminal Minds" or "Dexter", but keep them away from "Two and a Half Men"!