I teach in a Middle School and I am certain that girls are outscoring boys.
There are many reasons for this: i believe that girls who live with single mothers are expected to stay home and contribute to the work of the household. They are therefore more protected by their mothers and connected to them. Whereas the boys I see, aged 10 - 15, often overpower their mothers. They try to overpower their teachers as well. Then they are set loose to go out on the street, join gangs, do drugs, prowl. Boys come to school with the intention of sleeping. Everyday in every class, I have to wake up a boy who wants to lay his head on the desk and sleep. What I see everyday in my classroom gives me reason to wonder what will happen to these boys who emulate the Prison Culture they see on MTV.

Sent by Cynthia Allison | 6:43 AM ET | 11-01-2007

The quality of the entire education system in the United states is in crisis. Students and what they learn is a school's secondary concern, the primary concern is revenue. We teach our children to be competitive drone's of one another so they can fight each other in a limited workforce or on some battlefield. The world is in trouble and we are teaching our children all the wrong lessons. One day we will change the focus and teach our children how to use their minds and create instead of destroy.

Sent by George W | 8:45 AM ET | 11-01-2007

Is it bad to answer a question with a question?

Assuming "no", then why is anyone surprised when changing the format and content of a test changes scores in different populations?

The concept of test bias has been around for a long time. NCLB and other programs that mandate testing have not bothered to enhance our practical knowledge about IF _any_ test can truly measure knowledge and achievement in populations with widely differing backgrounds, language patterns, and learning styles.

And, citing the recent comments of a well known scientist and Nobel prize winner, the conclusions we draw from these test results can have on society's perceptions of the populations who get the short end of the testing stick.

Amy

Sent by Amy Bradley | 8:53 AM ET | 11-01-2007

"Is it cause for concern?" Of COURSE it is.

As much as the feminist-bent theorist in me would like to applaud the success of girls, triumphing over the boys even, how can this obvious discrepancy in any results - testing or otherwise - be acceptable?

I agree with Cynthia Allison's viewpoint, that young boys are often tempted to go the "power" route -- I think their lives are sometimes dependent on it.

But to just sit by and watch that continue makes us no better than those fatherly figures of the 50s that claimed "a girl's place is in the home".

Both are stereotypes that need to be fought against, in my opinion, if we're to be a country that would like to pride itself on its equality between all peoples.

Sent by Barbara F | 10:07 AM ET | 11-01-2007

There are too many other factors that influence student test scores to target changes in tests. Student attitudes toward testing reflect those of teachers who have learned to teach to the tests mandated by their state departments of education. So much emphasis has been placed on test scores that teacher don't spend time teaching the things that enticed them into education in the first place: the love of learning and the challenge of creative critical thinking. It is critical to address teacher burn-out as vigorously as we address all the other factors of student underachievement.

Sent by Sydney C | 10:59 AM ET | 11-01-2007

What's the real difference in the
results schools produce now and those
they produced in the 1960s, when I was
in elementary school?
Parents were dedicated to parenting,
and they did not expect the state,
shopping malls, television, or the
schools to do it for them.

Sent by Dave Randolph | 6:00 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Yes, they are, unless the parents work very hard to counter-act modern teaching modes. For example, a new emphasis on creative writing, even in math and science work is having a definite effect on performance in previously "boy" high-skill areas. For example, the WA state assessment test requires paragraph-writing to explain MATH answers. They get partial credit if the writing is good, but the answer is wrong and partial credit if the answer is right, but the writing is not "up to standard".

That pushes math-centric children out of their best area of achievement - most often boys.

Plus, there is less and less tolerance for children BEING children and not calm, dosed-up drones so that active boys AND girls get discriminated against. OK, there is good behavior and bad behavior, but what is acceptable in a girl, if borderline, is frequently treated as a behavior issue in a boy.
Libraries, due to publisher bias, tend heavily towards girl-centric fiction books. Boys want true-life, how-to-do-it books as a general rule. I remember those books as a kid, but not in any school library I've seen recently. I could go on, but why? I'd like to see less interdisciplinary testing and more expected in clearly divided lines of reading, writing, math, and science IF you MUST do these ridiculous high-stakes test in the first place.

Sent by Sue B | 7:11 PM ET | 11-02-2007

I think it must have to do with the computer gaming...why are boys more prone to spend hours addicted to computer games?...loosing their mind potential.

Sent by Bryn | 11:59 PM ET | 11-02-2007

I believe what these test scores show is the struggle to define what schools are supposed to do. To be totally honest, most schools are designed to socialize more than educate. You see that in the tug of war in defacto segregation, the push for students to feel good about themselves regardless of performance, promoting social concerns, ephasizing equality in al thigns at the expense of personal excellence, identy politics, etc. Any performance measurement that conflicts with these social goals will immediately be held suspect and attacked regardless of the validity of the test.

Sent by Steve | 12:21 AM ET | 11-03-2007

Without doubt there can be no completely unbiased results from tests that are designed by political and economic whimsy. Even so, I wonder and worry about the possibility of a uniquely negative effect on boys' brains from the steadily increasing accessibility and addictive quality of today's video games. As technology advances, so do designers' and marketers' (of any product) skill in grabbing and holding the attention of easily influenced minds everywhere. Boys vastly outnumber girls in video game ownership and use, for the same reasons Sue B. points out regarding their preferred literary genres. However, video games have the dubious distinction of providing, unlike books, the addictive hook of instantly gratifying 'true-life' results from hands-on efforts. How perverse that so many boys' only real expertise, their signature 'how-to-do-it' is probably exploding buildings and body parts on a big screen in their living rooms?

Cynthia Allison also underscores this point with her 'power' theme. I believe these games are yet another avenue for boys to express what naturally comes to them but in an unboundaried and inappropriate way. Their minds are thus at risk of being absorbed, used up and hyper-masculinized before they even get a chance to connect with the ideals of learning and healthy male development.

I would echo Barbara F.'s well-placed concerns about sexism, adding that the video game culture is yet another, but far more powerfully influential, stereotyped set of attitudes and activities that drain away boys' intellectual and social capabilities.

Sent by Amy Wallwork | 9:54 AM ET | 11-03-2007

I agree with Amy Wallwork in her accessment of the weakness developed through video gaming. I watched it grab the almost total attention of my step son, watched it warp the basic fabric of ballenced developement. My step daughter, on the other hand went in the opposite direction.

What I observed, while growing up, was the demise of "play ground" therapy that 1) reduced the agressive attitudes of boys and 2) really allowed them to then focus on academics. The final result of that is the obeasity problem that seems to plague our youth and then many adults. I Think there is a connection, here, in their developement. There is a real benefit in having general sports available in gym classes that are now obselete in virtually all schools. It is a real shame.

I am too old to know what other responders refer to in these tests. Being an adult who grew up with deslyxis and ADD, with out diagnosis, I can personally attest to what lask and limitation can do for an impressionable boy/young man. Young girls are taught at an early age to socialize and verbalize, boys are taught to play with trucks and guns not words. The basic flaw starts when we are very young and with parents who were taught the same way.

It is a sad commentary that today there are are so few male teachers to influence our young boys. Parents are only a start.

Sent by Robert Sokol | 7:34 AM ET | 11-04-2007

i agree with nearly every commenter. but i must add that most boys in public schools these days are taught by female teachers -- a recent report said that something like 75% of teachers are female.
i know that as a student, i didn't take my female teachers as seriously, nor did i learn as much from them as my male teachers. even more important is that i was rarely shown what a good man was: i wasn't shown how to be a good man because i didn't have any good men around, other than the token male science teacher. how can boys be expected to learn healthy masculinity when there's no good examples?

Sent by justin | 8:27 PM ET | 01-09-2008

Girls are in-fact outperforming boys, and I don't believe it has anything to do with making tests more colorful or providing wait time for finishing, as both sexes of children are known to benefit from such modifications. Because teaching is one of the most underpaid professions, as it was consider the job of females, and females have historically been paid less for their contributions to society, most teachers are still female. When comparing the learning styles required in a class room (quiet atmoshpere, no interruptions, conversational turn-taking, relaxed bodies) many could argue, the environment for learning is more appropriate for female children. Often times boy children seek more sensory and motor experiences throughout their day, and also have more of a tendency to speak out of turn. Because these behaviors are often stiffled in classrooms, boys can remove themselves from the environment, or be seen as a behavior problem. I also read about a teacher in an elementary school that allowed his class of boys to write about and study a war, as well as play-out this war during recess. This subject matter was interesting and engaging, and the male children scored equally well on reading tests compared to the nations girls. Changing teaching styles based on gender should be a consideration. I am not saying a boy or girl child has to fit the traditional profile of male or female student, or that the reason boys and girls are so different isn't due to societal pressure. I am just saying traditionally male children do not thrive in a classroom structured for females.

Sent by M Firth | 10:13 AM ET | 04-18-2008