Is MCPS systemically Biased against Boys?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was dumbfounded when I volunteered in my kids' MCPS classroom that teachers reward students who can sit still on the classroom rug as early as K. All the boys fidgeted, all the girls got the rewards. As they got older, there were various extracurricular enrichment geared toward girls - not just Girls on the Run but also arts programs where boys were not permitted to join. It blew my mind that public schools could discriminate against one gender. I asked the art teacher at our MCPS elementary school, who held afterschool art classes that were only open to girls, why - she said boys rarely signed up because they were too busy with sports.

I have 2 boys, one of whom loves sports and the other who is totally indifferent. An afterschool art class or casual running club would have been a godsend especially as they got ready for the social pressures around middle school. It should be illegal to offer preferential activities that discriminate by gender.

Like any other program in community, including religious and ethnic groups, Girls on the Run can rent use of MCPS facilities. Do you complain when Korean Sunday Schools are held in our middle schools?

+1 bashing Girls on the Run is absolutely ridiculous and those that do lose all credibility. When it comes to sports there is no dearth of programs for boys. FFS in MCPS TWO of the sports played mostly by girls are focused on cheering on the boys' teams. GTFOOH.

In 6th grade there are no MCPS sports yet, but Girls on the Run is advertised by our MS, with no equivalent program for boys. I understand that there are reasons behind this, but it's still a fact. (That is kind of upsetting to my son - he's no very sporty though does swimming and would love to run/jog - I'm hoping he'll enjoy cross-country next year.)

Good for MCPS. That's the age when many girls drop out of sports. Boys also drop out but not in such large numbers. I assure you there are plenty of sports programs available in your community for boys in 6th grade. I hear that your son would love to run, guess what, a lot of girls would love to play sports that are not available to them either. Stop bashing a program that is doing a lot of good.

I'm a NP. I'm not sure that anyone is bashing Girls on the Run; just pointing out that the equivalent program for boys might night exist at every school. You approve the point but referring to "sports programs available in the community for boys" which are not the same as after school programs available in the actual school building and, therefore more accessible than community programs that occur in the evenings and on weekends.

People are absolutely bashing it. On poster said it "pissed them off," another thought it was disappointing that the program existed only for girls and compared it to "Caucasians on the run," at least one wanted to force them to accept boys or stop advertising at schools.

If people wanted to support boys, they'd build up the programs supporting boys, instead they're focusing on tearing down programs for girls. I think that speaks a lot to where their actual priorities are.

+1 this

Some of y'all are selfish a-holes

On the other hand, the question was is the system biased against boys. If you are telling people they should start their own programs to support boys, doesn't that suggest there is a problem?

PP, but not the one you're directly responding to, but no, I don't. Girls on the Run exists because parents and people in the community saw a need for it and built it. Let Me Run exists because the parents saw a need for it and built it. They're both equally able to access school resources and equally dependent on parents stepping up to make sure that the program is there. There's a discrepancy between how many locations each program has, (Let Me Run has 11 sites in Montgomery County, Girls on the Run has 66), but that's down to how many parents volunteer. If fewer parents see a need for a program for boys, how does that suggest a problem?

Where are the 11 sites for let me run program in Montgomery county? I only see Kensington choice, 1 location in the county.

I have both a boy and a girl. In our elementary school, girl cam join on the Run at 3rd grade, and there is no other sports or similar activity for boy in our elementary school.

Kensington is the location it gives for Montgomery County, but if you click it goes through to this (https://montgomerycounty.letmerun.org/teams) which has 11 teams, not counting schools that have separate 3 and 4th/5th teams twice. There are also lots of sports activities for boys in Montgomery County, so I'm not sure what you mean. Girls on the Run isn't paid for by the school or anything, they use school facilities, like a lot of sports teams. There's plenty of sports out there for 3rd grade boys.

Thank you for the link. I got the wrong perception that girl on the run is offered by our elementary school. Our school principal is a woman, and sometimes I see some posting about proud of our girls, and book recommendation of girl being strong on her twitter (she provide the link for others to check out). I think if our school principal is a guy, then it could be a bit different. I want to encourage my mama boy to be strong as well especially he is a sensitive boy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve often looked at the gender breakdown of students with disabilities in our school. It’s about 3/4 boys. That number seems pretty lopsided given that disabilities typically affect both genders in equal numbers. The main difference is that girls often are not early identified because their behavior is often less disruptive than boys. One could argue that the lack of addressing the needs of girls with disabilities is discrimination due to disability and gender.

Definitely something MCPS should look into more and address. The numbers indicate a serious problem in schools.

As a woman who had undiagnosed adhd +, and a parent of 2 children with adhd +, it's not the schools job to find students with disabilities. The shocking disparity is the fault of the psychology industry, not the schools.

Federal laws include Section 504 and the IDEA puts the responsibility to identify students with disabilities and their needs on public schools that accept federal funding. There’s a wide discrepancy based on financial resources for parents to pay for private assessments.

As is, MCPS data shows boys are identified more than girls. That shows a probability of bias that impacts the child find process.

Schools are not allowed to diagnose learning problems or disabilities.

The words used above is identifying. They have staff to do the necessary assessments to identify students with disabilities and their needs. Identifying is written in the law.

How do schools track how well theybdonat *identifying * students with disabilities? Is there standard screening, like there is with hearing and vision? Why not?

MCPS has data that they internally review. I saw Phil Lynch review the data at a SEAC meeting before. When broken down by disabilities as compared to general population distribution, some disabilities were over identified in MCPS where others were underrepresented. One of the largest over identified was Autism. They have the ability to also analyze by gender.

This was probably presented by people without a scientific research background. There could be many reasons why ASD is seen at a higher rate in a certain location (like the average age of parents) beyond "over-identification."

The reason there are more asd kids here and in California is because this is where the science and tech jobs are. Nova and Boston too.

[Anonymous]

YES YES YES!!!!! I have been saying this FOREVER! Boys are treated more harshly than girls for the same actions. 100%!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was dumbfounded when I volunteered in my kids' MCPS classroom that teachers reward students who can sit still on the classroom rug as early as K. All the boys fidgeted, all the girls got the rewards. As they got older, there were various extracurricular enrichment geared toward girls - not just Girls on the Run but also arts programs where boys were not permitted to join. It blew my mind that public schools could discriminate against one gender. I asked the art teacher at our MCPS elementary school, who held afterschool art classes that were only open to girls, why - she said boys rarely signed up because they were too busy with sports.

I have 2 boys, one of whom loves sports and the other who is totally indifferent. An afterschool art class or casual running club would have been a godsend especially as they got ready for the social pressures around middle school. It should be illegal to offer preferential activities that discriminate by gender.

Like any other program in community, including religious and ethnic groups, Girls on the Run can rent use of MCPS facilities. Do you complain when Korean Sunday Schools are held in our middle schools?

+1 bashing Girls on the Run is absolutely ridiculous and those that do lose all credibility. When it comes to sports there is no dearth of programs for boys. FFS in MCPS TWO of the sports played mostly by girls are focused on cheering on the boys' teams. GTFOOH.

In 6th grade there are no MCPS sports yet, but Girls on the Run is advertised by our MS, with no equivalent program for boys. I understand that there are reasons behind this, but it's still a fact. (That is kind of upsetting to my son - he's no very sporty though does swimming and would love to run/jog - I'm hoping he'll enjoy cross-country next year.)

Good for MCPS. That's the age when many girls drop out of sports. Boys also drop out but not in such large numbers. I assure you there are plenty of sports programs available in your community for boys in 6th grade. I hear that your son would love to run, guess what, a lot of girls would love to play sports that are not available to them either. Stop bashing a program that is doing a lot of good.

I'm a NP. I'm not sure that anyone is bashing Girls on the Run; just pointing out that the equivalent program for boys might night exist at every school. You approve the point but referring to "sports programs available in the community for boys" which are not the same as after school programs available in the actual school building and, therefore more accessible than community programs that occur in the evenings and on weekends.

People are absolutely bashing it. On poster said it "pissed them off," another thought it was disappointing that the program existed only for girls and compared it to "Caucasians on the run," at least one wanted to force them to accept boys or stop advertising at schools.

If people wanted to support boys, they'd build up the programs supporting boys, instead they're focusing on tearing down programs for girls. I think that speaks a lot to where their actual priorities are.

+1 this

Some of y'all are selfish a-holes

On the other hand, the question was is the system biased against boys. If you are telling people they should start their own programs to support boys, doesn't that suggest there is a problem?

Why does BBC Baseball have priority use for fields when it mostly serves boys? Doesn't that suggest there is a problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:YES YES YES!!!!! I have been saying this FOREVER! Boys are treated more harshly than girls for the same actions. 100%!

Equality of outcomes means that, if any group has more members punished than others, that's a clear proof of racism or sexism.

In this case if boys are punished more than girls, it's sexism 101.

Time to call in the Feds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep we've seen it too. Also in our Bethesda ES, there are no male teachers and no male adminstrators. The only males working in the building are the building services and janitorial staff.

I've seen little attempts by MCPS to address the massive gender imbalance in hiring.

It's not an MCPS imbalance in hiring. It's a gender imbalance in the number of education majors who are women vs. men. Teaching has always traditionally been seen as a woman's career (I bet teachers would be paid much better if it was a male-dominated field!). The way to address the gender imbalance in schools is to encourage more boys to go into teaching, which won't happen until we change societal expectations of men as providers and women as nurturers.

We heard the same thing in tech -- not enough "pipeline" of women so that's why STEM fields had a huge gender imbalance. So, we focused on ensuring gender balance at the college level, which is why the STEM fields at many universities are now evenly balanced in terms of students studying. The result is more women in STEM fields, since more women are being educated in those fields. We made STEM "cool" even at the grade school level, which is great.

But... no such efforts when the gender imbalance is the other way. Again, we're failing our boys.

The problem with your comparison with STEM is that girls/women have traditionally been seen as not being good enough for these professions, while teaching was seen as not good enough for boys/men - because it doesn't pay enough, it's "easy," etc. (in both cases, boys/men are seen as superior).

Excuses, excuses. We heard a million reasons why women couldn't enter field X and they proved them wrong. Why don't we apply the same to boys?

You realize that women still drop out of STEM careers at shockingly high rates? The problem of women in STEM is far from over. Do not be so smug. You have nothing to be smug about.

Some of us acknowledge brain differences between biological sexes, rather than blame some bogeyman for our preference toward the verbal.

And some of us acknowledge the spectrum of differences within a biological sex are greater than the difference between the biological sexes.

That is clearly false.

Signed,

Scientist

DP and a neuroscientist. Why do you think this statement is false? It fits with the neurocognitive data I've seen.

Because the main point, that GREATER part that I bolded, is not supported by evidence.

(in the context of that comment, PP was trying to deny the importance of biological sex, which is well-documented for many of the traits discussed through this thread. And, sure, we're not talking about binary things but a continuum also mediated by other variables)

I'm the 10.57 commenter. I'm not sure how much the difference is because of biological sex either though. There are cultural differences in behavior (and how the behavior is perceived) within the same gender. In the US, Black girls are disciplined about 10 times the rate for white girls. Those aren't biological differences.

I'll also add, sex differences in executive function are really small. Take impulsivity, for example, the distributions of performance for boys and girls are largely overlapping even if there are statistically significant group differences.

Not saying boys and girls are not behaving differently in the classroom, but even science hasn't figured out how much of the difference is innate vs social.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:YES YES YES!!!!! I have been saying this FOREVER! Boys are treated more harshly than girls for the same actions. 100%!

Studies show the opposite is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YES YES YES!!!!! I have been saying this FOREVER! Boys are treated more harshly than girls for the same actions. 100%!

Studies show the opposite is true.

What studies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two teenage boys in MCPS and this is such BS.

Teach your boys not to get into fights and stop blaming their getting into trouble on well behaved girls.

Society, parents, teachers hold girl to higher standards of behavior. They let boys get away with more. Then surprise surprise the boys aren’t as well behaved .

I also have two passive teen boys who have never gotten into fights. But the favoritism shown towards girls is undeniable. Very sad.

NP here. I have a girl in MS and a boy in HS, neither have any history of aggressive behavior and both came home at various times during elementary school years to volunteer stories about differential treatment of girl on boy aggression vs. boy on girl. But MCPS is big. It could swing the other way at some schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was dumbfounded when I volunteered in my kids' MCPS classroom that teachers reward students who can sit still on the classroom rug as early as K. All the boys fidgeted, all the girls got the rewards. As they got older, there were various extracurricular enrichment geared toward girls - not just Girls on the Run but also arts programs where boys were not permitted to join. It blew my mind that public schools could discriminate against one gender. I asked the art teacher at our MCPS elementary school, who held afterschool art classes that were only open to girls, why - she said boys rarely signed up because they were too busy with sports.

I have 2 boys, one of whom loves sports and the other who is totally indifferent. An afterschool art class or casual running club would have been a godsend especially as they got ready for the social pressures around middle school. It should be illegal to offer preferential activities that discriminate by gender.

Like any other program in community, including religious and ethnic groups, Girls on the Run can rent use of MCPS facilities. Do you complain when Korean Sunday Schools are held in our middle schools?

+1 bashing Girls on the Run is absolutely ridiculous and those that do lose all credibility. When it comes to sports there is no dearth of programs for boys. FFS in MCPS TWO of the sports played mostly by girls are focused on cheering on the boys' teams. GTFOOH.

In 6th grade there are no MCPS sports yet, but Girls on the Run is advertised by our MS, with no equivalent program for boys. I understand that there are reasons behind this, but it's still a fact. (That is kind of upsetting to my son - he's no very sporty though does swimming and would love to run/jog - I'm hoping he'll enjoy cross-country next year.)

Good for MCPS. That's the age when many girls drop out of sports. Boys also drop out but not in such large numbers. I assure you there are plenty of sports programs available in your community for boys in 6th grade. I hear that your son would love to run, guess what, a lot of girls would love to play sports that are not available to them either. Stop bashing a program that is doing a lot of good.

I'm a NP. I'm not sure that anyone is bashing Girls on the Run; just pointing out that the equivalent program for boys might night exist at every school. You approve the point but referring to "sports programs available in the community for boys" which are not the same as after school programs available in the actual school building and, therefore more accessible than community programs that occur in the evenings and on weekends.

People are absolutely bashing it. On poster said it "pissed them off," another thought it was disappointing that the program existed only for girls and compared it to "Caucasians on the run," at least one wanted to force them to accept boys or stop advertising at schools.

If people wanted to support boys, they'd build up the programs supporting boys, instead they're focusing on tearing down programs for girls. I think that speaks a lot to where their actual priorities are.

+1 this

Some of y'all are selfish a-holes

On the other hand, the question was is the system biased against boys. If you are telling people they should start their own programs to support boys, doesn't that suggest there is a problem?

PP, but not the one you're directly responding to, but no, I don't. Girls on the Run exists because parents and people in the community saw a need for it and built it. Let Me Run exists because the parents saw a need for it and built it. They're both equally able to access school resources and equally dependent on parents stepping up to make sure that the program is there. There's a discrepancy between how many locations each program has, (Let Me Run has 11 sites in Montgomery County, Girls on the Run has 66), but that's down to how many parents volunteer. If fewer parents see a need for a program for boys, how does that suggest a problem?

Where are the 11 sites for let me run program in Montgomery county? I only see Kensington choice, 1 location in the county.

I have both a boy and a girl. In our elementary school, girl cam join on the Run at 3rd grade, and there is no other sports or similar activity for boy in our elementary school.

Kensington is the location it gives for Montgomery County, but if you click it goes through to this (https://montgomerycounty.letmerun.org/teams) which has 11 teams, not counting schools that have separate 3 and 4th/5th teams twice. There are also lots of sports activities for boys in Montgomery County, so I'm not sure what you mean. Girls on the Run isn't paid for by the school or anything, they use school facilities, like a lot of sports teams. There's plenty of sports out there for 3rd grade boys.

NP. Thank you for clarifying. I don't understand all of the outrage about Girls on the Run and think the PPs have misunderstood the schools' actual role with it. MCPS is not providing coaches or directly facilitating Girls on the Run, they are simply allowing the families that volunteer to lead a group to rent MCPS facilities. If PPs want their sons to join a running group, then set up a Let Me Run group in your neighborhood. That's what the Girls on the Run Participants did. And if PPs aren't interested in running, there are plenty of other volunteer-run, recreational-level sports available in the county.

[Anonymous]

Wake up people, it's 2022, there is no such thing as boys and girls anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was dumbfounded when I volunteered in my kids' MCPS classroom that teachers reward students who can sit still on the classroom rug as early as K. All the boys fidgeted, all the girls got the rewards. As they got older, there were various extracurricular enrichment geared toward girls - not just Girls on the Run but also arts programs where boys were not permitted to join. It blew my mind that public schools could discriminate against one gender. I asked the art teacher at our MCPS elementary school, who held afterschool art classes that were only open to girls, why - she said boys rarely signed up because they were too busy with sports.

I have 2 boys, one of whom loves sports and the other who is totally indifferent. An afterschool art class or casual running club would have been a godsend especially as they got ready for the social pressures around middle school. It should be illegal to offer preferential activities that discriminate by gender.

Like any other program in community, including religious and ethnic groups, Girls on the Run can rent use of MCPS facilities. Do you complain when Korean Sunday Schools are held in our middle schools?

+1 bashing Girls on the Run is absolutely ridiculous and those that do lose all credibility. When it comes to sports there is no dearth of programs for boys. FFS in MCPS TWO of the sports played mostly by girls are focused on cheering on the boys' teams. GTFOOH.

In 6th grade there are no MCPS sports yet, but Girls on the Run is advertised by our MS, with no equivalent program for boys. I understand that there are reasons behind this, but it's still a fact. (That is kind of upsetting to my son - he's no very sporty though does swimming and would love to run/jog - I'm hoping he'll enjoy cross-country next year.)

Good for MCPS. That's the age when many girls drop out of sports. Boys also drop out but not in such large numbers. I assure you there are plenty of sports programs available in your community for boys in 6th grade. I hear that your son would love to run, guess what, a lot of girls would love to play sports that are not available to them either. Stop bashing a program that is doing a lot of good.

I'm a NP. I'm not sure that anyone is bashing Girls on the Run; just pointing out that the equivalent program for boys might night exist at every school. You approve the point but referring to "sports programs available in the community for boys" which are not the same as after school programs available in the actual school building and, therefore more accessible than community programs that occur in the evenings and on weekends.

People are absolutely bashing it. On poster said it "pissed them off," another thought it was disappointing that the program existed only for girls and compared it to "Caucasians on the run," at least one wanted to force them to accept boys or stop advertising at schools.

If people wanted to support boys, they'd build up the programs supporting boys, instead they're focusing on tearing down programs for girls. I think that speaks a lot to where their actual priorities are.

+1 this

Some of y'all are selfish a-holes

On the other hand, the question was is the system biased against boys. If you are telling people they should start their own programs to support boys, doesn't that suggest there is a problem?

In this case, girls on the run exists explicitly because people started their own program. Parents volunteered and became part of a national network. The suggestion that parents of boys do the same is not inequitable, it is literally just suggesting that they do the exact same thing that parents of girls did.

Moreover, this is the opposite of systemic. For something to be systemic, it needs to be upheld by systems. Girls on the run is not upheld by systems, it is upheld by parent volunteers. Unless there's a systemic reason that parents of girls have more time on their hands than parents of boys, this is not a systemic problem, it is a failure of boy parents to step up and volunteer the lead stuff

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was dumbfounded when I volunteered in my kids' MCPS classroom that teachers reward students who can sit still on the classroom rug as early as K. All the boys fidgeted, all the girls got the rewards. As they got older, there were various extracurricular enrichment geared toward girls - not just Girls on the Run but also arts programs where boys were not permitted to join. It blew my mind that public schools could discriminate against one gender. I asked the art teacher at our MCPS elementary school, who held afterschool art classes that were only open to girls, why - she said boys rarely signed up because they were too busy with sports.

I have 2 boys, one of whom loves sports and the other who is totally indifferent. An afterschool art class or casual running club would have been a godsend especially as they got ready for the social pressures around middle school. It should be illegal to offer preferential activities that discriminate by gender.

Like any other program in community, including religious and ethnic groups, Girls on the Run can rent use of MCPS facilities. Do you complain when Korean Sunday Schools are held in our middle schools?

+1 bashing Girls on the Run is absolutely ridiculous and those that do lose all credibility. When it comes to sports there is no dearth of programs for boys. FFS in MCPS TWO of the sports played mostly by girls are focused on cheering on the boys' teams. GTFOOH.

In 6th grade there are no MCPS sports yet, but Girls on the Run is advertised by our MS, with no equivalent program for boys. I understand that there are reasons behind this, but it's still a fact. (That is kind of upsetting to my son - he's no very sporty though does swimming and would love to run/jog - I'm hoping he'll enjoy cross-country next year.)

Good for MCPS. That's the age when many girls drop out of sports. Boys also drop out but not in such large numbers. I assure you there are plenty of sports programs available in your community for boys in 6th grade. I hear that your son would love to run, guess what, a lot of girls would love to play sports that are not available to them either. Stop bashing a program that is doing a lot of good.

I'm a NP. I'm not sure that anyone is bashing Girls on the Run; just pointing out that the equivalent program for boys might night exist at every school. You approve the point but referring to "sports programs available in the community for boys" which are not the same as after school programs available in the actual school building and, therefore more accessible than community programs that occur in the evenings and on weekends.

People are absolutely bashing it. On poster said it "pissed them off," another thought it was disappointing that the program existed only for girls and compared it to "Caucasians on the run," at least one wanted to force them to accept boys or stop advertising at schools.

If people wanted to support boys, they'd build up the programs supporting boys, instead they're focusing on tearing down programs for girls. I think that speaks a lot to where their actual priorities are.

+1 this

Some of y'all are selfish a-holes

On the other hand, the question was is the system biased against boys. If you are telling people they should start their own programs to support boys, doesn't that suggest there is a problem?

PP, but not the one you're directly responding to, but no, I don't. Girls on the Run exists because parents and people in the community saw a need for it and built it. Let Me Run exists because the parents saw a need for it and built it. They're both equally able to access school resources and equally dependent on parents stepping up to make sure that the program is there. There's a discrepancy between how many locations each program has, (Let Me Run has 11 sites in Montgomery County, Girls on the Run has 66), but that's down to how many parents volunteer. If fewer parents see a need for a program for boys, how does that suggest a problem?

Where are the 11 sites for let me run program in Montgomery county? I only see Kensington choice, 1 location in the county.

I have both a boy and a girl. In our elementary school, girl cam join on the Run at 3rd grade, and there is no other sports or similar activity for boy in our elementary school.

Kensington is the location it gives for Montgomery County, but if you click it goes through to this (https://montgomerycounty.letmerun.org/teams) which has 11 teams, not counting schools that have separate 3 and 4th/5th teams twice. There are also lots of sports activities for boys in Montgomery County, so I'm not sure what you mean. Girls on the Run isn't paid for by the school or anything, they use school facilities, like a lot of sports teams. There's plenty of sports out there for 3rd grade boys.

NP. Thank you for clarifying. I don't understand all of the outrage about Girls on the Run and think the PPs have misunderstood the schools' actual role with it. MCPS is not providing coaches or directly facilitating Girls on the Run, they are simply allowing the families that volunteer to lead a group to rent MCPS facilities. If PPs want their sons to join a running group, then set up a Let Me Run group in your neighborhood. That's what the Girls on the Run Participants did. And if PPs aren't interested in running, there are plenty of other volunteer-run, recreational-level sports available in the county.

Part of the problem is this - at our ES, the coaches for Girls on the Run are teachers from our ES.

Versus for other after-school activities where private companies bring in outside teachers or coaches for soccer or foreign language, etc.

Girls on the Run uses teachers from the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wake up people, it's 2022, there is no such thing as boys and girls anymore.

Fair point.

Wtf is Girls on the Run? A transphobic sexist Russian lobby?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was dumbfounded when I volunteered in my kids' MCPS classroom that teachers reward students who can sit still on the classroom rug as early as K. All the boys fidgeted, all the girls got the rewards. As they got older, there were various extracurricular enrichment geared toward girls - not just Girls on the Run but also arts programs where boys were not permitted to join. It blew my mind that public schools could discriminate against one gender. I asked the art teacher at our MCPS elementary school, who held afterschool art classes that were only open to girls, why - she said boys rarely signed up because they were too busy with sports.

I have 2 boys, one of whom loves sports and the other who is totally indifferent. An afterschool art class or casual running club would have been a godsend especially as they got ready for the social pressures around middle school. It should be illegal to offer preferential activities that discriminate by gender.

Like any other program in community, including religious and ethnic groups, Girls on the Run can rent use of MCPS facilities. Do you complain when Korean Sunday Schools are held in our middle schools?

+1 bashing Girls on the Run is absolutely ridiculous and those that do lose all credibility. When it comes to sports there is no dearth of programs for boys. FFS in MCPS TWO of the sports played mostly by girls are focused on cheering on the boys' teams. GTFOOH.

In 6th grade there are no MCPS sports yet, but Girls on the Run is advertised by our MS, with no equivalent program for boys. I understand that there are reasons behind this, but it's still a fact. (That is kind of upsetting to my son - he's no very sporty though does swimming and would love to run/jog - I'm hoping he'll enjoy cross-country next year.)

Good for MCPS. That's the age when many girls drop out of sports. Boys also drop out but not in such large numbers. I assure you there are plenty of sports programs available in your community for boys in 6th grade. I hear that your son would love to run, guess what, a lot of girls would love to play sports that are not available to them either. Stop bashing a program that is doing a lot of good.

I'm a NP. I'm not sure that anyone is bashing Girls on the Run; just pointing out that the equivalent program for boys might night exist at every school. You approve the point but referring to "sports programs available in the community for boys" which are not the same as after school programs available in the actual school building and, therefore more accessible than community programs that occur in the evenings and on weekends.

People are absolutely bashing it. On poster said it "pissed them off," another thought it was disappointing that the program existed only for girls and compared it to "Caucasians on the run," at least one wanted to force them to accept boys or stop advertising at schools.

If people wanted to support boys, they'd build up the programs supporting boys, instead they're focusing on tearing down programs for girls. I think that speaks a lot to where their actual priorities are.

+1 this

Some of y'all are selfish a-holes

On the other hand, the question was is the system biased against boys. If you are telling people they should start their own programs to support boys, doesn't that suggest there is a problem?

In this case, girls on the run exists explicitly because people started their own program. Parents volunteered and became part of a national network. The suggestion that parents of boys do the same is not inequitable, it is literally just suggesting that they do the exact same thing that parents of girls did.

Moreover, this is the opposite of systemic. For something to be systemic, it needs to be upheld by systems. Girls on the run is not upheld by systems, it is upheld by parent volunteers. Unless there's a systemic reason that parents of girls have more time on their hands than parents of boys, this is not a systemic problem, it is a failure of boy parents to step up and volunteer the lead stuff

This is a joke?

We have a girl and a boy. The school has asked us to do a million things for DD, and not a thing for DS (which we do anyway, it's called parenting)