The Gender Gap in Reading

           

            How come girls are doing so much better than boys when it comes to language arts in our public schools today? Why is it that three out of four children diagnosed with "learning disabilities" are boys? How come you hardly ever see anyone under age 21 reading a book "for fun" any more, especially boys?

 

            It may go 'way beyond boys' fascination with video games, although that may be a factor. But the real culprit might be school reading curriculum itself.

 

            Sandra Stotsky, author and education consultant who has studied the quality of English standards in the 50 states, and holds a doctorate in education from Harvard University, said there's "an intellectual vacuum at the heart of the English curriculum." In short, in-school reading instruction has been dumbed down and is no longer any fun. It also appears slanted against the interests and natural abilities of boys. She said the research suggests these reasons:

 

n       Teachers and school librarians persist in selecting literature which suits their personal political agendas because of its ideology and the issues explored, rather than selecting stories that boys and girls like to read that have excellence and have stood the test of time. This is despite a century of data that shows that boys and girls do not like "didactic" contemporary literature that's supposed to be "good" for them, on themes such as drug addiction, teenage pregnancy, global warming and so forth. Literally, the simplistic, overpoliticized curriculum is a turnoff for reading.

n       Teachers and librarians also are overwhelmingly female, and tend to select books about personal relationships and fantasy. But the research strongly shows that boys prefer adventure, historical nonfiction, science fiction and biographies. They will choose books about war, sports and humor if left to their own devices, but female educators rarely select those types of books. Female educators also rarely select biographies of high-achieving individuals if they were white male Christians.

n       Teachers' colleges and teachers' organizations persist in guiding teachers to believe that eliciting an emotional reaction from students about a piece of literature is the goal of reading. Instead of classic explication of text, they want students to get highly personal and heavily subjective about the work of literature. It's kind of like being the guest star on "Oprah," only nowhere near as much fun, since adolescents aren't comfortable with this psychoanalytical approach to learning, especially in front of peers. Opening up and sharing feelings and emotions is just about the last thing a boy wants to do in a classroom, starting at about fifth grade. It's the kiss of death for the success of the learning activity. No wonder so many boys "hate" reading, starting at around puberty. It's not their fault, and worse, an aversion to reading created by bad curriculum foretells major negative consequences for those boys on down the road, as they underachieve in high school, college, careers and adult life.

 

            Stotsky quotes a major recent analysis of U.S. adult literacy, the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL), released in December 2005 by the National Center for Education Statistics. It shows the reading skills of American adults have declined dramatically from 1992 to 2003. In fact, the higher the educational level, the bigger the decline in their ability to read ordinary prose, one of the three kinds of literacy assessed by NCES. "Ordinary prose" is defined as the content of a typical instruction manual, or the wording on a ballot issue, for example. High school graduates declined 6 points on average, college graduates declined 11 points, and those with graduate study or graduate degrees did 13 points worse than their counterparts just five years before.

 

            Stotsky termed it "astonishing" that 31% of those with graduate study or graduate degrees in 2003 were rated "proficient" in reading prose (i.e., they were able to go beyond a literal understanding of a complex book). In a similar assessment in 1992, 41% were rated "proficient," the highest of the four possible ratings. In 2003, only 31% of college graduates could be rated "proficient," compared to 40% in 1992.

 

            She termed it "amazing" that little or no press attention has been paid to the fact that the reason for those declines is almost totally because of males doing worse than before.

 

            She also cited a 2004 report by the National Endowment for the Arts, Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America. It reported major declines in voluntary literary reading for both men and women between 1992 and 2002. While book reading by 18- to 24-year-old women slipped from 63 percent to 59 percent, book reading by 18- to 24-year-old men plummeted from 55 percent to 43 percent, triple the decline for women.