The author of the piece, Michael Gurian, suggests that part of the problem with modern classroom education on the K-12 level is that it is not well-suited to the learning style of young boys and teenagers. The classroom model of 20-30 students led by one teacher:
Now, however, the boys who don't fit the classrooms are glaringly clear. Many families are barely involved in their children's education. Girls outperform boys in nearly every academic area. Many of the old principles of education are diminished. In a classroom of 30 kids, about five boys will begin to fail in the first few years of pre-school and elementary school. By fifth grade, they will be diagnosed as learning disabled, ADD/ADHD, behaviorally disordered or "unmotivated." They will no longer do their homework (though they may say they are doing it), they will disrupt class or withdraw from it, they will find a few islands of competence (like video games or computers) and overemphasize those.
While Gurian hints at some of the economic consequences of the failure to educate boys in the K-12 setting leads to their failure at the collegiate level, he fails to follow-through.
Of course, not every male has to go to college to succeed, to be a good husband, to be a good and productive man. But a dismal future lies ahead for large numbers of boys in this generation who will not go to college. Statistics show that a young man who doesn't finish school or go to college in 2005 will likely earn less than half what a college graduate earns. He'll be three times more likely to be unemployed and more likely to be homeless. He'll be more likely to get divorced, more likely to engage in violence against women and more likely to engage in crime. He'll be more likely to develop substance abuse problems and to be a greater burden on the economy, statistically, since men who don't attend college pay less in Social Security and other taxes, depend more on government welfare, are more likely to father children out of wedlock and are more likely not to pay child support.
Whether it is true or not, the perception about young women attending college in the 50’s and 60’s was largely about finding solid husband with good prospects. Today, women who graduate from college do far better on their own economically that they no longer need a husband for economic security, but a husband for emotional and mental attachments. However, if less than 45% of their college peers are men (a number that is dwindling), the pool of acceptable men (to them at least) is also shrinking. This is of course assuming that college educated women are more likely to wed college educated men--which may be a faulty assumption.
But the impact on the marriage dynamic may be altered as well. In the past, men tended to be the primary breadwinner for the family during the early to mid part of the 20th Century. Women who worked outside of the home tended to be supplementary income at most. As the 20th Century came to a close the economic situtation of women has improved dramatically, largely as a result of the growing number of women obtaining college and post-graduate degrees. As more degrees are awarded to women today than men, the result may very well be a reversal of what was happening in the early 20th Century, women will earn more than the men in their lives--shifting not only the economic but all the sociological ecosystem.
Of course all of this is speculation at best, but Gurian talks of a movement to assist boys in the K-12 environment, driven largely by women.
I get hundreds of e-mails and letters every week, from parents, teachers and others who are beginning to realize that we must do for our sons what we did for our daughters in the industrialized schooling system -- realize that boys are struggling and need help. These teachers and parents are part of a social movement -- a boys' movement that started, I think, about 10 years ago. It's a movement that gets noticed for brief moments by the media (when Columbine happened, when Laura Bush talked about boys) and then goes underground again. It's a movement very much powered by individual women -- mainly mothers of sons -- who say things to me like the e-mailers who wrote, "I don't know anyone who doesn't have a son struggling in school," or, "I thought having a boy would be like having a girl, but when my son was born, I had to rethink things."
Speaking anecdotally for my family, when my wife and I found out we were expecting a second child, I had hoped for a boy since I already had a daughter (it is a man thing ladies). My wife expressed concern about her ability to raise a son, she had no brother and our friends with a son seemed to have so many issues with controlling the behavior of the boy that my wife felt she was ill-equipped to handle a son.
If my wife is to be taken as a representative of modern women, like those Gurian describes, then fatherhood takes on a whole new meaning for boys. The trend of absentee fatherism cannot be allowed to continue--it jeopardizes our boys more than anything else.
By the way, my wife and I had a beautiful, healthy baby girl about 10 weeks ago, and despite my desires for a son, I could not be happier. The basic rule still applies, as long as all the parts are there and they work, you can't ask for anything more.
No comments:
Post a Comment