I've been hearing more and more about the decline in boys' reading levels across the country. Here is a recent article from the Washington Post. What do you all think?

Since the article quotes a children's librarian, it seems to me that you are in a perfect position to contribute to this debate! I DO think that the type of reading is a major factor, but consider the immense popularity of the Harry Potter series among both genders! J.K. Rowling, besides aggrandizing herself mightily, also got many non-readers hooked on reading world-wide. So what if boys don't read King Lear until college!

I once worked as a volunteer in a program called "Junior Great Books," in both fourth and sixth grades. I found that just as many boys got what the authors were attempting to convey as did girls, but this was a select group of "talented and gifted" kids, so one can't equate them to the general populace. Also, it was in a heavily Jewish, white-collar neighborhood, where there was 100% participation in the PTA! I suspect that a child's cultural melieu as well as gender play equal parts.

I agree with you, Asa, and I feel that a boy OR girl who is read stories and poetry from infancy will love reading later on, given the opportunity.

Well, I hate to sound anti-man, but I would have to see some data. The research I have read has always shown that in school boys are called on more frequently than girls, taken more seriously and they are given more positive feedback. If you look at SAT, scores (the only data I could find were from 2001) you can see that boys average higher than girls in both verbal and math. Besides that, men make more money than women, indicating that their literacy is at least on the level of women.

I wouldn't worry about boys not reading. I'd worry more about education in general and not treating boys and girls differently, just because of gender.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Certainly, in this country, boys lag behind girls in literacy, by quite a few percentage points on average.

arnie, how are they measuring literacy? Do women in England receive higher salaries? I mean, is this lower literacy translated into the workplace?

No Kalleh, I don't think it is translated into the workplace. <cynicism> Boys these days generally prefer playing violent games on their games consoles to reading, but they seem to catch up eventually, and then they get the better salaries, faster promotions, etc. Maybe there's a secret 'PlayStation2 handshake' we girlies don't know about! </cynicism>

quote:

Originally posted by Cat:
Maybe there's a secret 'PlayStation2 handshake' we girlies don't know about!

For the record I've never played ANY game on a games console and, excluding scrabble and the like, the only PC game I've ever played is American McGee's Alice which I played with all the cheats turned on just to see the graphics. That one doesn't count because it was part of an entirely different obsession.

I think the question of salaries is valid, but doesn't really follow through on the illiteracy problem. Those men who are in the work force making more money than us are not the boys of yesterday who didn't learn to read, obviously. Our prisons are full of those boys. Are there men who have learned to read well and are making money? Obviously. That is another debate.

What I see on a daily basis are kids who are embarrassed if they are educated. I see boys who will steal a book to read on the sly because they don't want to admit they've "sold out" to the system. I see children in 4th and 5th grade who can't read . . . more boys than girls. Boys think that they don't need to learn to read well - they just need to be able to rap or play a sport and they'll be filthy rich. What happens to those boys when they realize that only one in a million make it big?

I agree with Sunflower - the problem really starts at home (of course) where children aren't being spoken to or read to. One thing you need to consider is that, in some communities, we're now seeing a multigenerational problem. We've been pushing kids through our public school systems without ever teaching them to read competently. We're blaming the teachers, we're blaming the funding, we're blaming poverty or whatever. I don't think we've ever really spoken up enough about what the real problem is! These children are being treated like pets until they get to preschool, and are so very far behind in language skills by 4 years old that there is no way they'll be able to catch up. I see kids that can't respond to simple questions. 3 and 4 year old children who can't think for themselves to say anything beyond hi, yes and no.

OK - climbing down off my soapbox. (Breathe, CW, breathe!) For me, this sort of article reminds me of how important it is to speak to the teen parents and others with young children to impress upon them the value of paying attention to their children, boys and girls.

Sorry, Kalleh, but I don't understand. You asked about boys' reading, then started talking about salaries.

Over here we don't pay our school kids until they reach school leaving age, when we bribe them to stay on at school (presumably to keep the unemployed figures low).

I'm also unclear on the connection between money and literacy. I could make more money as a plumber (lots more money in fact) than a teacher with a considerably lower requirement for either literacy or numeracy.

Incidentally if you're wondering about arnie's bribe comment we have something called EMA where students who could leave school and get a job are paid £30 a week to keep on going to school providing they miss no lessons.

quote:

the problem really starts at home (of course) where children aren't being spoken to or read to.

I agree with that, CW. But you are saying children, not boys...and that's precisely what I think.

Arnie and Bob, if there is a significant difference between boys and girls with literacy, one must be able to measure it. Otherwise, it is merely opinion. I have already shown statistics from the U.S. that boys here score higher on the verbal part of the SAT test and make higher salaries. The salary bit, I agree, may be pushing the envelope. To me it means that the boys are educated at a level where they are able to attain higher positions in their careers. Of course, there are a lot of other variables with careers, including a social bias.

Now, CW makes a good point in looking at boys versus girls in prisons. Of course, in the US, one must look at African-Americans and Latinos versus Caucasians in prisons as well. That again translates into illiteracy because again studies have shown that teachers often don't give minority groups as much attention in schools.

I hope that is clearer. I agree that it is a complex question, and that there are no black and white answers. However, I don't think the normal white boy in the U.S. is significantly more illiterate than the white girl. In fact, the facts show the opposite.

Kalleh,

We have tests at various stages; Key Stage 1 measures Reading, Writing, Spelling, and Maths of 7 year old children; Key Stage 2 and 3 measure English, Maths, and Science for 11 year olds and 13 year olds respectively.

At all ages girls perform significantly better than boys in English. Conversely, boys tend to outperform girls in Science, although not by the same amount. In Maths, the results are about equal.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: arnie,

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:

Arnie and Bob, if there is a significant difference between boys and girls with literacy, one must be able to measure it.

I don't disagree, either with the assertion or the need to measure it.

quote:

I have already shown statistics from the U.S. that boys here score higher on the verbal part of the SAT test and make higher salaries.

Again I don't disagree with either assertion. However I do disagree that the existance of two trends is sufficient to establish a causal relationship.

Girls also smoke more than boys does that establish a causal relationship between literacy and smoking?

On the other hand boys play football more than girls, does that establish a causal relationship between between football and literacy?

Most worrying of all does the fact that one sex statistically has a shorter life span than the other establish a causal relationship between early death and literacy?

It's not the trends I'm questioning, just what evidence there is to suggest that literacy and final salary are actually connected.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

What a very interesting thread this is.

I can see why it is tempting to link literacy with career success but it seems to me that there are many other factors involved that push men forward and hold women back. Men tend not to have the natural career breaks that women do and this continuity of work helps to give them the promotions that lead to higher salaries. There is also the possibility that men are naturally more aggressive and assertive than women and therefore are able to push their careers forward at a greater pace. It has certainly been my experience that the people who enjoy most career success aren't always the best at what they do. If I was in a more cynical frame of mind I would say that it is rarely the case. When I lived in Glasgow I came across the saying 'The greeting wain gets all the milk' (for our American friends, 'greeting' means crying and 'wain' is child) and I think there is alot of truth in this. I have also heard it said that men succeed more because they are able to focus more intently on something than women. The theory is that a woman will always have some of her attention on things like family etc. while men are able to completely ignore everything else except what they are doing. My wife has certainly levelled that criticism at me more than once so perhaps it is men's natural selfishness that pushes them on.

As far as my subject is concerned at school (English literature) I find that the girls invariably do better than boys because literature requires individuals to think laterally and boys tend to prefer things that have definite answers, hence their affinity for subjects like Maths and Science. The girls are better at understanding shades of opinion but having said that, if a boy is good at English literature he can invariably be far better than the girls because they tend to accept and understand the various theories and interpretations that are given to them but the boy will push things further and explore new possibilities. Boys seem to have more natural confidence and this allows them to push the boundaries more than girls.

Here are the national averages for the tests at Key stages 1, 2, and 3 for England. They are expressed as average points scores; how the points scores are reached is not material; suffice it to say that the higher the better. The figures are for 2004 for KS1 and KS2; 2003 for KS3. I am not at work today so don't have access to 2004 KS3 figures easily.

---

  Boys       Girls
      15.1     16.5    KS1 Reading
      13.8     15.5    KS1 Writing
      26.1     27.8    KS2 English
      32.1     34.6    KS3 English

---

It can be easily seen that there is a difference between the average results of boys and girls. Of course, these are average results, and the results of individual pupils and classes will vary.

quote:

On the other hand boys play football more than girls, does that establish a causal relationship between between football and literacy?

Causal or not there seems to be a link between football expertise and articulacy on the media :-)

I should have mentioned in my post yesterday that one point is (very) approximately equal to the progress made in one term (semester I believe to Americans - one third of a school year). Therefore it can be seen that boys are on average two and a half terms behind the girls by the age of 13 when they sit their KS3 tests.

quote:

It's not the trends I'm questioning, just what evidence there is to suggest that literacy and final salary are actually connected.

Good point, Bob. Please note, though, that I had said this: "The salary bit, I agree, may be pushing the envelope. To me it means that the boys are educated at a level where they are able to attain higher positions in their careers. Of course, there are a lot of other variables with careers, including a social bias." I do think there is a closer link to literacy (or doing well in school) and career success than literacy and smoking or some of those other relationships that you posted.

I realize too that I only looked at SAT scores. Only those students who plan to attend college take those tests, which of course wouldn't include everyone. I will try to search for scores similar to the ones that arnie posted. It would be intriguing to see if the gender differences that you have in literacy are the same here.

I can't quote the source, but I read once that there is no close relationship between high levels of literacy and achievement. Indeed, the source suggested that the converse might often be true.

Certainly there are very many high earners in the UK who are not hugely literate or articulate. Similarly the possession of a high level of intelligence does not seem to correlate with achievment.

Obviously I am speaking here of "normal" ranges; people who are hugely sub-normal in intelligence or learning will usually be significantly disadvantaged.

I do not think, though, that boys generally are less literate than girls. If that is naive then I am guilty as charged. On the other hand, I also don't believe that men have better scientific minds than women.

I can't quote the source, but I read once that there is no close relationship between high levels of literacy and achievement. Indeed, the source suggested that the converse might often be true.

Richard, it is too bad that you can't find that source...the converse might be true? That is hard to believe.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

Richard, it is too bad that you can't find that source...the converse might be true? That is hard to believe.

I will have to have a look. But common observation surely indicates that there must be some truth in the assertion. When you listen to interviews with high achievers - from any sphere of activity - how many times do the seem to be especially articulate? And articulacy is surely associated closely with literacy.

I am still trying to get my head around the logic behind the jumps in this topic. I thought that this thread was about boys' literacy (or lack of it) but many posts seem to be about differences in pay between men and women in (much) later life. Can we please get back to the topic?

If we want to debate sexual equality in the workplace, I suggest someone starts a new thread.

Sorry, arnie, that was my fault.

I guess my point was that I don't think boys are any less literate than girls, at least here in the U.S. I do agree that boys get started later than girls, but I think boys catch up. I also agree that boys like different kinds of literature than girls do. Yet, I don't agree with the premise (at least here in the U.S.) that boys, more than girls, don't want to admit they're smart. In fact, I think it could be the opposite. Often girls don't want to take the challenging courses or "beat the boys" intellectually because they want the boys to like them.

Richard, I think we are thinking about the levels of literacy being related to achievement differently. I would imagine that you and I agree. I do not think that there is a direct positive relationship between literacy and achievement. However, I also don't think many who are illiterate have high levels of achievement in society (i.e., doctors, lawyers, CEOs, scientists, professors, etc.). To me, that is what you were saying; that is, the more illiterate one is, the more he or she will achieve. I'm sure I am wrong, though.

I don't think that's what Richard's saying at all. I think he's saying that lower levels of litteracy aren't a bar to business success. That's a very long way from saying that they help you to succeed.

Fundamentally his position seems the same as mine. That literacy and business success are unconnected. (Or in my case that I've yet to see any proper evidence that they are connected. The statistical evidence presented so far being of a mathematically suspect nature.)

Of course doctors, lawyers and so on will naturally show good levels of literacy as disciplines require long training and accademic success. The literacy is clearly a factor inasmuch as you cannot reasonably pass the degree courses involved without writing accademic papers and you cannot write accademic papers if you cannot write.

I'd be willing to bet that there are CEOs with lower levels of literacy just as I'd bet there are highly accomplished artists, musicians, businessmen and women, builders, designers, maybe even architects and scientists whose literacy levels are quite poor - especially when reading something outside their immediate field.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

quote:

I think he's saying that lower levels of litteracy aren't a bar to business success.

I completely agree with that; it is similar to the most recent discussion of "emotional intelligence" being important in success.

That literacy and business success are unconnected.
I disagree with that. It is stated too strongly. While high intelligence (and literacy) are not always related to success, most success is related to literacy. Of course, now, that all depends on how you are defining success. I am talking about career success, and that may be superficial. However, with career success, I can tell you there are a whole lot more Harvard and Yale grads at the top of companies, as brain surgeons, on the Supreme Court, etc., than graduates of Podunk University.

With your list of highly accomplished people who are poorly literate, I'd have to disagree with some of them, such as architects and scientists. If they are successful in their field, they have had to be literate (especially scientists).

I suppose I am a little naive though. I have always embraced education since I was a child. Education was one of our values in raising our kids, and we sacrificed a great deal for their education. Further, my entire career as a nurse has been spent in education.

So, I damned well better think it makes a difference!

In modern society intelligence and learning are a survival mechanism as was physical strength in the stone age. But that doesn't mean that unintelligent and unlearned people can't be successful in their careers. It depends on the career and it depends on the person.

Kalleh's career has been in a field where literacy and intelligence are important; there are many other fields of achievement where there are other, more important, qualities.

Richard Branson, now one of Britain's richest men with a personal fortune of around 3 billion pounds, is dyslexic and admits himself that his spelling is still very poor.

He wasn't even clever enough to pass the common entrance examination (the access route to the better schools in England in the 1950s) and he was sent to a private school in Sussex, from which he was very nearly expelled for having an affair with the headmaster's daughter.

Branson's is just one example which demonstrates that academic failure need not be a barrier to career success - any more than academic success is a guarantee of it.

.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
With your list of highly accomplished people who are poorly literate, I'd have to disagree with some of them, such as architects and scientists. If they are successful in their field, they have had to be literate (especially scientists).

I rarely take exception to things but I have to point out that that's a completely unjustified and misleading paraphrase of what I said.
I did not say that the people on my list were illiterate.

I said that

I'd be willing to bet that there are CEOs with lower levels of literacy just as I'd bet there are highly accomplished artists, musicians, businessmen and women, builders, designers, maybe even architects and scientists whose literacy levels are quite poor - especially when reading something outside their immediate field.

In other words I'd bet that in all of those professions there are some people who have a lower literacy level.

Actually it's a given. Literacy like just about everything else follows a normal distribution - i.e. a bell curve and some people will always be at the low end of the bell.
However what I'm saying is that even by any absolute (i.e criterion referenced rather than norm referenced) standard you will probably find some members of those professions whose literacy is poor.

Yes, even scientists. I have met a lot of "scientists" who NEVER read anything outside their own specialised field. That doesn't make them illiterate but neither does the ability to read and understand an esoteric paper on the subject of submolecular bonding make you literate in a general sense.

In fact I've read specialist papers by highly respected academics which were written with styles that I would consider show lower levels of literacy. Literacy doesn't just mean you can use big words and pompous constructions. It means that you can produce text fit for its purpose and its audience.

quote:

academic failure need not be a barrier to career success - any more than academic success is a guarantee of it.

RE, I think you've put it very well here.

quote:

Literacy doesn't just mean you can use big words and pompous constructions. It means that you can produce text fit for its purpose and its audience.

And Bob, this is important, too.

I think literacy in its fullest, most broad sense needs to include the notion of the ability to finesse the language. Some of this comes from book-learning, while a certain amount of this could come from intuition . . . and is that from nature or nurture, do you think? I would tend to argue that it's both.

I'll leave off commenting now, to see what this stirs up.

quote:

I rarely take exception to things but I have to point out that that's a completely unjustified and misleading paraphrase of what I said. I did not say that the people on my list were illiterate.

Bob, I didn't say that the people on your list were illiterate. I said that they'd have to be literate, which of course infers a degree of literacy.

Sorry, though, that I invoked that reaction in you. I surely did not intend to "unjustifiably" and purposely "mislead" the reader with my paraphrase of your comment.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

I may have to eat my hat or crow...or something.

As to CW's original question, I just read an article with some startling statistics about American boys versus girls in education. Here are some of the statistics:
~ 57% of new college graduates will be female, up from 43% in 1970.
~ Boys are expelled from pre-schools 4 times the rate of girls.
~ When boys are slow to pick up reading skills, educators much more quickly conclude it is a physical condition: Boys are twice as likely as girls to be diagnosed with learning disabilities and 4 times as likely to be put on attention-deficit medication.

Yikes! I apologize. I was wrong, and we need to do something to fix this.

quote:

Boys are twice as likely as girls to be diagnosed with learning disabilities

There's another side to this: if you are diagnosed with a learning disability you get unlimited time on tests and extra help. Getting diagnosed with learning disability definitely gives you a leg up on the other students, and is as much a function of affluence and influence as anything else (I can give you the reference of a doctor in Palo Alto who will be more happy to diagnose you as learning disabled for $200). I think this reflects, at least in part, the fact that our society still values the education of boys over girls.

Interesting analysis, neveu, and you very well may be right. BTW, where have you been in this thread...it seemed as though it was I against the world!

What's your analysis as to why the percentage of boys graduating from college has decreased?

quote:

What's your analysis as to why the percentage of boys graduating from college has decreased?

I dunno. Rising standards?

I think there has been a shift in how "society" in general views education. There are large portions of people who feel that education isn't something that's cool or necessary. Look at the hero-isation of sports stars. Look at the newer standards that allow guys to skip college sports and go into professional teams. The word on the streets is that you can make more money in fields that don't require an education than those that require years of work. It's like a bastardization of the American Dream. The kids I see don't think you should have to work hard for success. They think you just need to get the right connections for success.

quote:

I think there has been a shift in how "society" in general views education. There are large portions of people who feel that education isn't something that's cool or necessary.

I think it's becoming polarized. On one side are the people you describe; on the other hand I personally know a lot of very middle-class people competing for the privilege of paying $20,000 to get their kid into the "right" kindergarten.

Yes, you are right. I have seen that, too, neveu.

quote:

on the other hand I personally know a lot of very middle-class people competing for the privilege of paying $20,000 to get their kid into the "right" kindergarten.

Yes, I have too. And it doesn't stop at kindergarten. They have 4-day-a-week tennis lessons for 3 hours a day in 1st grade. Or basketball lessons taught by Michael Jordan and his assistants (I am not kidding; remember, I live in Chicago); etc. I have seen kids so booked up that they can't ever go over to their friends' homes.

I agree about the polarization, and I hate it.

BTW, neveu, I don't think the reason that a lower percentage of males are graduating from college is because of higher standards because then the numbers of men and women would be decreasing. It seems to be that the percentage of women is increasing, while the percentage of men is decreasing.