BOYS WILL BE BOYS

USA Today had a very good editorial in Friday’s paper. It discussed a subject that has received little attention – slipping academic performance of boys. Girls are outperforming boys on academic tests and the gap is widening. More importantly, almost nothing is being done to address the issue. In fact, attitudes to the problem are often outright hostile.

Girls have had advocates for years, addressing the problems facing girls in high school. Issues have been raised, studies have been done and changes have often been made in teaching curriculum to address the gaps, especially in the sciences and math. But, as the girls have passed the boys, the boys have had no one to fight for them.

The editorial didn’t offer any solutions, didn't ask for any specific changes – just brought the issue up. I commend them for this, it’s not often I agree with the editorial board of USA Today.

The interesting thing about this whole USA Today editorial was the counter-opinion offered by Jacqueline E. Woods, executive director of the American Association of University Women – one of the advocate groups for girls. Her irrational response proved the assertion USA Today made about the hostility even when issued is only raised. Look at the very first paragraph:

“The American Association of University Women (AAUW) is troubled by recent suggestions that girls and women are somehow to blame for the fact that boys are not excelling in certain academic areas. Is there a "gender war" being waged against boys, as some have claimed?”

The USA Today editorial never once suggested girls and women were to blame. The closest they came to anything like that was quoting the study on dyslexia that showed boys are more often identified as being dyslexic than girls by the mostly female teachers. This was a stating a fact, not placing blame on women.

Further on we get this bit of drama:

“The flames of a gender war are being unnecessarily fanned, implying that educational achievement is a zero-sum game and that girls' achievements have somehow come at the expense of boys'.”

Please, the editorial said nothing to that effect. Woods immediately leaped from the ledge at the mere mention that perhaps boys need help, too. It seems to be a trait in women’s groups to act like any questioning, any potential problems brought up, anything other than 100% agreement with any proposals are an attack on women. Just go to the National Organization of Women’s website and you’ll see what I mean.

A scary bit of information was mentioned, but not really explored. Look at this statistic used to make the gender gap point:

“In 12th grade, 44% of girls rate as proficient readers on federal tests, compared with 28% of boys.”

WHAT?!?! 44%? 28%? Aside from the whole boy-girl thing, these numbers are sickening. I mean, we’re not talking about anything other than “proficiency”. Yet, if we just throw more money at the NEA, I mean the schools, everything will be better. At least that’s what I hear from the liberals. You see, we just aren’t spending enough, look at the success of the DC schools.

Woods had a paragraph in her counter-opinion:

“The message to women and girls is clear: You are taking more than your fair share. You are too successful. You have come too far, and boys are paying the price for your accomplishments.”

Now, this is a hysterical attack on a straw man, histrionics on an issue never raised by USA Today. But, aside from that, replace “women and girls” with “whites” and see what you get:

“The message to white people is clear: You are taking more than your fair share. You are too successful. You have come too far, and minorities are paying the price for your accomplishments.”

Isn’t that exactly what we hear from Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the ilk? It works even better if you replace “women and girls” with “America”:

“The message to America is clear: You are taking more than your fair share. You are too successful. You have come too far, and poor, third world countries are paying the price for your accomplishments.”

Isn’t that what we hear all of the time from “the international community”? Isn’t that what Greenpeace and all of the environmental whackos are saying?

How about if we use “Rich and Middle Class”?

“The message to the rich and middle class is clear: You are taking more than your fair share. You are too successful. You have come too far, and the poor are paying the price for your accomplishments.”

We have now encapsulated Howard Dean’s campaign against the tax cut. The uses of this bit of histrionics is limitless. Not really relevant to the issue of boys and girls in education, but fun anyway.