I lived there for 7 years from the time my kids were 2 & 4 and is actually a really great place to raise children. My kids attended the local private asilo (preschool) and it cost €184 per month for 8am to 4pm with a home cooked hot lunch. The local public one was only the cost of lunch. You can get before and after care at a select number. Most Italian families will have grandparents that pickup the kids at 4 each day so parents can work. Schooling is very rigorous and in upper grades there is a lot of emphasis on order and behavior which I can see favoring girls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Italy is still a misogynistic country, and very few women have high level jobs.

https://www.thelocal.it/20181212/why-are-there-so-few-women-in-italys-most-powerful-jobs/

Even if the girls get better grades in school, it's not translating to more higher paying jobs.

This sounds like the response when people point out that boys have higher dropout rates, lower college admission and graduation rates, etc. "Since the president is a man, since more board members and law/medicine partners are men, who cares?"

? Read the dam$ article. Italy has a female workforce problem.

Here's another: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/05/italys-problem-with-working-women-made-worse-by-coronavirus-349561

And I say this as a mom of a boy and girl.

I have family in Italy. They don't have a female workforce problem. They have a job problem, as in there aren't very many jobs at all.

But either way, giving boys lower grades for the same competency hurts boys but doesn't help girls. So it's not a solution for any problem.

there aren't many jobs, but the culture there doesn't value women in the workforce. It's a really misogynistic culture. Don't get me wrong.. I love Italy. I honeymooned there, but I would not want to live there as a mother.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me that just means that girls are better students. They tend to study more, so I'd expect them to do better on class room tests. Standardized tests aren't as heavily weighted towards those with good study habits, so I'd expect that advantage to disappear.

yes, my DS in a HS magnet program even says that girls are better students and care way more about grades and school than boys.

Boys are not well suited to the classroom setting of sitting still and listening, and wanting to please the teacher.

Obviously, that doesn't mean that boys aren't smart. But, they aren't school smart as much as girls are, but when they take standardized tests, boys often score better in math, especially.

It is well known in the US that boys score better on tests, including finals and standardized tests, than on classwork, homework, etc., and girls score better on classwork and homework than on big tests. So changing grading to give more weight to classwork, homework, and participation helps girls'grades and hurts boys' grades. Since we want to grade for equity, then we change grades this way. But is it really equitable?

This is why going test optional is not going to help boys.

America going test Optional for k-12, college and grad schools will hurt everyone, big time.

No. It only hurts those who either naturally excel at taking tests or have access to intensive prep.

Test prep is free everywhere for households under $100k reported gross income. No excuse

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me that just means that girls are better students. They tend to study more, so I'd expect them to do better on class room tests. Standardized tests aren't as heavily weighted towards those with good study habits, so I'd expect that advantage to disappear.

yes, my DS in a HS magnet program even says that girls are better students and care way more about grades and school than boys.

Boys are not well suited to the classroom setting of sitting still and listening, and wanting to please the teacher.

Obviously, that doesn't mean that boys aren't smart. But, they aren't school smart as much as girls are, but when they take standardized tests, boys often score better in math, especially.

It is well known in the US that boys score better on tests, including finals and standardized tests, than on classwork, homework, etc., and girls score better on classwork and homework than on big tests. So changing grading to give more weight to classwork, homework, and participation helps girls'grades and hurts boys' grades. Since we want to grade for equity, then we change grades this way. But is it really equitable?

This is why going test optional is not going to help boys.

America going test Optional for k-12, college and grad schools will hurt everyone, big time.

No. It only hurts those who either naturally excel at taking tests or have access to intensive prep.

Sorry but lots of smart m, hard working kids retain what they learn quite well and can demonstrate it on quizzes, tests, etc.

Did you know that when applying to private schools you have to take a math and reading test as part of the application packet? Some are given online - like Starr- but many are 2 hours at the school in a Saturday, take their own tests.

So not all of life is Optional to show your knowledge and skills. Many students actually have knowledge and skills and can tell you all about them any time, any test, any assignment. Let them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me that just means that girls are better students. They tend to study more, so I'd expect them to do better on class room tests. Standardized tests aren't as heavily weighted towards those with good study habits, so I'd expect that advantage to disappear.

yes, my DS in a HS magnet program even says that girls are better students and care way more about grades and school than boys.

Boys are not well suited to the classroom setting of sitting still and listening, and wanting to please the teacher.

Obviously, that doesn't mean that boys aren't smart. But, they aren't school smart as much as girls are, but when they take standardized tests, boys often score better in math, especially.

It is well known in the US that boys score better on tests, including finals and standardized tests, than on classwork, homework, etc., and girls score better on classwork and homework than on big tests. So changing grading to give more weight to classwork, homework, and participation helps girls'grades and hurts boys' grades. Since we want to grade for equity, then we change grades this way. But is it really equitable?

This is why going test optional is not going to help boys.

America going test Optional for k-12, college and grad schools will hurt everyone, big time.

No. It only hurts those who either naturally excel at taking tests or have access to intensive prep.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me that just means that girls are better students. They tend to study more, so I'd expect them to do better on class room tests. Standardized tests aren't as heavily weighted towards those with good study habits, so I'd expect that advantage to disappear.

yes, my DS in a HS magnet program even says that girls are better students and care way more about grades and school than boys.

Boys are not well suited to the classroom setting of sitting still and listening, and wanting to please the teacher.

Obviously, that doesn't mean that boys aren't smart. But, they aren't school smart as much as girls are, but when they take standardized tests, boys often score better in math, especially.

So sexist! Seriously, get a life.