In his OpEd article, featured in The New York Times on Sunday, March 28, 2010, Nicholas Kristof shares somewhat surprising news: boys have fallen behind girls in school. Girls in the United States and other Western countries have surpassed boys in verbal skills, and are roughly even with them in math. Kristof points to the latest statistics issued by the Center on Education Policy which demonstrates lower achievement by males in reading in each and every U.S. state and in each level tested: elementary, middle and high school.
Using verbal skills as the main issue in the gender gap, the author draws other stats from these fundamental findings. They include female dominance in National Honor Societies and the number of bachelor and master degrees earned. Certainly I am not against narrowing the reading gap, but find it interesting how much attention this gap demands when the math achievement gap between males and females went years without much attention. In my years as a middle school student, girls excelled in reading and English classes, while boys tended to dominate at math. I cannot attest to this discrepancy as it carries on to high school years, for I attended an all-girls high school. Yet in my SAT prep courses, I recall my fellow females having less trouble with the verbal sections than with math. Why, then, is it only recently that so much attention is paid to this issue?
Only on the very top of the charts do boys beat out the girls, especially in math. In 2009, boys earned 62% of triple perfect 800 SAT scores (that is, a perfect 2400 on the SAT), with 69% of all math 800 scores also registered by the boys. Yet this dominance relates to very few students. In reading this part of the article, I could not help but think that the boys with these perfect scores have access to SAT preparatory courses and remarkable educational opportunities. The broader results regarding reading cover most of the general school population across the nation.
Some argue that the world is more verbal and boys have not adjusted as well to this reality. The method to learn these skills is less action-oriented and may bore the boys who turn off early, thus escalating their reading problems in middle and high school. Using research by Richard Whitmire, Kristof describes the lower grade point averages for boys, and the higher likelihood that boys will repeat a grade, be suspended and/or ultimately, drop out of school. Whitmire thus suggests using more adventure, even “gross-out” books to get boys reading. One website that sorts books in ways to appeal to boys even list titles that contain “at least one explosion.” I can readily understand how the reading problem stems from the early school years and agree that educators may need to use more appealing means to focus boys on the reading task at hand. Yet what does that say about gendered education methods? If we begin to cater to boys’ special needs for adventure and excitement, how are we leaving out the girls? I feel that the use of technology may be used to enhance the reading skills of males, rather than a focus on highly gendered genres of literature. Many males are game-oriented, and using games that require a combination of reading and button pushing may engage boys and help them improve their skills while they enjoy the game technology. I prefer this solution as a supplement at home or after school to the “gross-out” books suggested in the article, as these will only lower expectations of males as they make the leap, in literature and in life.
In my last NewsFlash, I discussed the gender inequalities that still exist in the working world. Though women in general have made great gains in the workplace, we have a long way to go; today, men grossly overpower certain fields, as even Kristof notes that “men are still hugely overrepresented in Congress, on executive boards, and in the corridors of power.” As Critenden mentions in her article, “The Mommy Tax,” measuring the gender gap usually only compares wages of men and of women who work like men, free of family and domestic responsibilities. Critendon writes, “the average earnings of all female workers in 1999 were 59 percent of men’s earnings” (93). Our class discussion on wage differences between men and women in the very same fields was just as eye-opening. Clearly, be it in teaching, law, table waiting or human relations, men are earning more than women, though both sexes devote an equal amount of time and effort to the job.
Kristof ignores the irony of this gender gap and instead focuses on how decelerated male performance will affect the fate of the U.S. He believes “our future depends on making the best use of human capital we can, whether it belongs to girls or boys.” Yet I feel that he is only concerned that boys are failing because these boys will not become the aforementioned men at the head of business or with political power. Not once does he celebrate the intelligence of girls across the country and in other Western nations. His male-oriented article neglects to appreciate that female educational advances will have an immense impact on the future of Western nations. As women continue to excel in school, they will assume more prominent roles in what Kristof calls “the corridors of power,” spreading positive female influences and conceptions all over the world.
Gender disparities have long been debate in education, but I agree with Eileen's assessment that this gap, where the boys are behind for once, is gaining more attention than others. What I always find interesting is the arguments that center around the different ways boys and girls supposedly learn: boys need a much more active education to keep their education, while girls can be more passive receptacles of knowledge. This discrepancy often leads to the well-behaved girls not getting equal attention from the teacher. With all these gaps in place, some have argued that segregated classrooms in the answers. Still, this would only raise a number of new issues. I feel awareness of the gaps is the first step. Teachers, while good intentioned, are also influenced by the stereotypes present in the greater society and undoubtedly make assumptions or act differently towards their students. Thus,teachers and administrators should work together to identify entrenched patterns in the behavior and policies that may work to create or maintain a gender gap.
ReplyDeleteI think Eileen brings up a very interesting point about the gendered instructional methods widely accepted and employed by teachers. As an Ed Studies major, I am constantly thinking about the implications of schooling on society, yet in most of the courses for my concentration I have not had the experience of discussing curricular negotiations of gender. It is interesting to think that in our teaching of reading, we are still perpetuating gender roles by using widely accepted gendered topics to spark the interests of boys and girls.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that women are now on average receiving more education than men, it is shocking that in the workplace, we are still at such a compensation disadvantage. Eileen's article is interesting because it takes us back to the root of gender stereotypes in education that likely have implications that extend to the workplace. It is interesting to think about how girls and boys are educated differently and whether their general educational strenghts and weaknesses are true or rather based on false stereotypes. Perhaps by relying on the assumption that boys are better at math and girls are better at reading, we are contributing to the types of job segregation that arise in the workplace?
ReplyDelete