Perhaps No Crisis, But a Persistent Problem

June 30, 2006

Recently, The Washington Post carried an article claiming that a new study indicates that the “boy crisis” as described in various media, including Newsweek and Esquire, does not exist. In fact, the study, an analysis of selected data by Sara Mead of the Education Sector, agrees that research shows that boys are not only underperforming compared to girls in the area of reading and writing, but also are continuing to fall behind at the same time that girls have pretty much bridged the gap that indicated a lag in their achievement in math and science compared to boys. The author's concern seems to be with the use of the word "crisis" by the mainstream media. Unfortunately, in her attempt to downplay the “crisis” in boys’ academic achievement she writes that “the girls are just improving faster than the boys.” One cannot begin to imagine the furor that would be caused if the situation were reversed by gender and a writer/analyst wondered why there was a concern when boys were merely improving faster than girls. Certainly, the Post seems to be ready to create a polarized debate.

I, for one, agree that the word “crisis” is perhaps overused. As the author points out, the facts of the situation have been around for some time, and have been relatively unchanged for many years. However, the real crisis exists in the fact that most educators and adults were not aware that these gaps in boys’ achievement existed and continue to exist today. Rather than debating whether or not a crisis exists, all of us, including the media, should be urging policymakers and educators to focus on how to educate students in the best way possible. If girls are "getting ahead faster" than boys, then we must not be doing the right thing for boys. We don't have to call it a crisis, but I am baffled as to how anyone can admit to persistent gaps and growing gaps in achievement and insist that there is no problem.

Perhaps Mead’s true concern and motivation can be found in the last two paragraphs of her report. After admitting that “policymakers should support and fund more research about differences in boys’ and girls’ achievement, brain development, and the culture of schools to help teachers and parents better understand why boys’ achievement is not rising as fast as that of girls,” she concludes, "these steps can help establish a more reasonable conversation and lead to effective responses to the achievement problems facing some boys, without unfairly undermining the gains that girls have made in recent decades."

This fear, that new efforts by those concerned with boosting boys' achievement will somehow undermine girls' achievement, is understandable. In the 90s the news media widely distributed an AAUW report that "schools shortchanged girls" even as girls were catching up in math and science and boys continued to lag in reading and writing. Some suspect that some of the changes made to boost girls scholastic achievement may have inadvertently resulted in undermining boys' achievement in the coed classrooms of most schools. Fortunately, single-sex schools like Princeton Academy have the advantage that adjustments can be made to curriculum, teaching strategies, and school culture to improve the academic achievement of boys, without creating negative effects for girls. Educators would do well to look to us, and schools like us, for information and strategies to address the issue of boys’ academic needs. There is no boy crisis at Princeton Academy.