Raising and EducatingHealthy Boys

A Report on the GrowingCrisis in Boys’ Education

A Publication of theEducational Equity Center at the

Academy for Educational Development

Dedication

We would like to dedicate this report in memory of Barbara D. Finberg, who diedon March 5, 2005. Barbara was a life-long advocate for social justice and educational equi-ty, with a special expertise in early childhood education. She was a staunch supporter of ourwork over many years, serving on Educational Equity Concepts’ Board of Directors and, afterEEC merged with AED, on the EEC/AED Leadership Council. Barbara was a participant inthe meeting on Raising and Educating Healthy Boys and, as always, her contributions werewell thought out, insightful and reflected her commitment to the well- being of children.

Acknowledgments

The Raising and Educating Healthy Boys Project would not have been possible with-out the support of two visionary funders who recognize the importance of addressing thiscritical issue beginning in early childhood. For this foresight we are grateful to the A.L.Mailman Family Foundation, Luba Lynch, Executive Director and the Ms. Foundation forWomen, Susan Wefald, Director of Institutional Planning. We are also grateful for their gen-erous support of the invitational meeting and this report.

The Project is indebted to Craig Flood who, as a father and equity professional, hasbeen concerned with the negative effect of gender socialization on young boys since the1980s. Craig’s Concept Paper and early work on the issue helped to launch the Raising andEducating Healthy Boys Project. We also want to acknowledge Dr. Nancy Gropper, theProject’s evaluator, who helped to conceptualize the project and developed the focus groupprotocol; and Susan Shaffer, who helped in the development of the Project and assisted inconducting the focus groups in Washington, DC.

We would like to thank all the teachers and parents who participated in the focusgroups for sharing their ideas and strategies. We also appreciate the schools who helpedto organize the focus groups and served as focus group sites: In Washington, DC, we thankDr. Marta Palacios Principal, Bruce Monroe Elementary School. In Croton-on-Hudson, NewYork, our thanks go to Judith Stein Coleman, parent, Dr. Marjorie E. Castro, Superintendentof Schools, and Diana Bowers, Principal, Carrie E. Thompson Elementary School. In NewYork City, we thank Françoise Jacobsohn and Dorothy Essendoh, two activist parents whoarranged focus groups with teachers and parents at Midtown West Elementary School. And,we thank Cecilia Blewer, parent at PS 163 in New York City, for arranging to have other par-ents devote time in their café 163 program to a focus group. We also extend our thanks toDr. Blythe Hinitz, Professor, Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education, TheCollege of New Jersey, who arranged for us to conduct two focus groups with her students.

We also extend our appreciation to the participants who attended the invitationalmeeting and contributed their ideas and expertise. Their names appear on the ParticipantsList in the Appendices of this report. Finally, we wish to acknowledge Stacy Silverstein andElayne Archer for their contributions to this report: Stacy for her intrepid note-taking at themeeting and Elayne for her skillful editing.

Raising and EducatingHealthy Boys

A Report on the GrowingCrisis in Boys’ Education

Compiled by Merle Froschl andBarbara Sprung

Co-DirectorsEducational Equity CenterAcademy forEducational Development

New York City2005

Educational Equity Center at AED

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Gender Socialization: The “Boy Code”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The Growing Crisis in Boys’ Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Gender and Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Viewing Boys as “Problems” in School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

High Rates of Early Expulsion Affecting Young Boys . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

The Effect of Educational Policy on School Culture and

the Relational Aspects of Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Call to Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Research Agenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Communications Campaign. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Appendices

Meeting Agenda

Meeting Participants

Table of Contents

Raising and educating healthy boys is anarea of increasing concern among educators,child development experts, and parents acrossthe country. It was the focus of an invitationalmeeting convened by the Educational EquityCenter at the Academy for EducationalDevelopment (EEC/AED) in November 2004.The impetus came from EEC/AED’s longstandingconcern about ensuring equity for all childrenbeginning at the earliest levels of education.

Children as young as three and fourare really good at observing andthey see the inequities. We are sanc-tioning this in our practices andeveryone is absorbing it.

-- Luba LynchExecutive Director

A.L. Mailman Family Foundation

The meeting brought together a nationalgroup of researchers and educators to analyzethe current situation in terms of boys’ develop-ment and school performance and to create anaction plan to focus national attention on thewell-being of boys in school and in society.Funding was provided by the A. L. MailmanFamily Fund and the Ms. Foundation forWomen, foundations that had supported earlierwork on the issue.

Participants brought a range of nationaland international perspectives to the meeting.Recurring themes included examining the pre-vailing stereotypes about boys; the growinggap in boys’ literacy skills; the viewing of boysas “problems” in school, leading to suspen-sion and expulsion beginning in preschool;and the current trends in education towardmandated curriculum and high-stakes testing,which negatively affect the important relation-al aspects of teaching.

Why is a women’s organizationinterested in boys? The lives andfutures of women and girls areinterwoven with those of men andboys. Unless we engage men andboys in our work, we cannot endviolence against women.

-- Susan Wefald Director of Institutional Planning

Ms. Foundation for Women

1

Introduction

b

Educational Equity Concepts (EEC) devel-oped the Raising and Educating Healthy Boysproject in 20001 in response to a growingbody of research raising concerns about boys’social/emotional development and school per-formance, particularly in terms of literacy.

EEC had always been concerned withfreeing both girls and boys from the limitingeffects of sex-role stereotyping, beginning atthe earliest levels of education. As the body ofresearch documenting the difficulties boyswere experiencing in school grew, EECbecame interested in looking at the issue ofyoung boys’ healthy development and educa-tion and determining the role of gender social-ization in boys’ academic and social success.

We need to start addressing issuesof gender socialization of boys andgirls at the preschool level. At stakeis the full potential of each individ-ual child’s cognitive, social, andemotional development.

-- Barbara SprungCo-Director

Educational Equity Center at AED

As a first step, the project conducted aseries of focus groups with preK-3 teachersand parents to learn how boys are perceived

and to explore strategies for change. Duringthe focus groups, adults were asked toaddress questions in two boxes:

• Box one asked: What does it mean to bemale in our society?

• Box two asked: What happens to boyswho don’t fit into box one?2

Participants had no trouble identifying thecharacteristics for the ideal male—instrumentalcompetence, physical power, moral principles,and character. They also were well aware ofthe pain and suffering that could result from notfitting in––e.g., anti-social behavior, beingteased and bullied, hardships and pressures,and a negative effect on instrumental compe-tence. As discussed in the project evaluator’sreport of the focus groups, boys seem to be ina “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” sit-uation (Gropper, 2004).

The focus groups made it clear that,although teachers and parents are aware andconcerned that boys are not faring well inschool, strategies for change were scattered atbest. Teachers and parents felt constrained bythe current climate in school fostered by the“pushdown” and mandated curriculum affect-ing preK and the early primary grades and thehigh-stakes testing that typically begins ingrade 4. Given this environment, teachers andparents are at a loss about how to address

2

Background

1 Educational Equity Concepts has since merged with the Academy for Educational Development to form the Educational Equity Center at AED. During its 22years before joining AED, EEC’s mission was––and as the Educational Equity Center at AED remains––to promote equality of opportunity regardless of gender,race/ethnicity, disability, or family income.

2 The box activity was developed for the focus groups by Craig Flood. It was adapted from the “Act Like a Man Box” published in 1992 in Helping Teens StopViolence: A Practical Guide for Counselors, Educators, and Parents by Allan Creighton with Paul Kivel and Men’s Work: How to Stop the Violence That TearsOur lives Apart by Judy Chu.

issues of boys’ physical, social/emotional,and cognitive needs.

EEC came away from the focus groupsconvinced of the need to raise national atten-tion to the alarming statistics about youngboys’ emotional well-being and academicachievement, and the implications for theirfuture education and careers. This does notmean that attention is turned away from girls’needs; it means that gender issues in the pre-school years, as always, are addressed interms of all children. Effective gender equitybenefits both boys and girls. Attention to gen-der socialization is essential in order to pre-pare all students, girls and boys, for academ-ic success and healthy adult lives.

Ideas about how boys and girls are“supposed to be” are planted early.The messages boys receive aboutwhat it means to be male in thissociety are connected to their social-emotional and academic develop-ment. If we focus on boys’ schoolexperience early on, we willimprove education for all children.

-- Merle Froschl Co-Director

Educational Equity Center at AED

Gender Socialization:The “Boy Code”

William Pollack (1998) has coined thephrase, “the boy code,” to express the con-straints on boys’ emotional development andthe resulting inner emotional pain that manyboys carry around under the façade of being“normal” and “fine.” Kindlon and Thompsoncall it “emotional illiteracy” (1999).

Basically, these researchers are speakingto the way boys are socialized from earlychildhood to conform to a societal conceptionof what it means to be a man. While accept-able boundaries for girls’ choices and behav-iors have greatly expanded over the past sev-eral decades, boys remain in a “box,” anideal of masculinity that limits their emotionaland relational development. As the focusgroups described earlier made clear, teachersand parents are well aware that the conse-quences of operating outside the “box” aresevere. Boys who do so are labeled in waysthat leave them feeling isolated, shamed, andvulnerable to teasing and bullying.

3

Male socialization is an issue not justin the USA, but worldwide. In everysociety, two things that are mostimportant are 1) the ability to sup-port your family and 2) to be toughand able to defend your family,your community and your country.Both have a power orientation andhave implications on relationshipswith women, attitudes about sexu-ality, community and country.

-- Barbara D. FinbergVice President

MEM Associates

At the meeting, Judy Chu, research scientistand lecturer, Stanford University, and SusanShaffer, deputy director and director of genderequity programs, Mid-Atlantic Equity Center,presented a point of view about boys’ relationaldevelopment that looked behind the stereotypesof the “unemotional” boy. Both Chu and Shaffernoted that boys are capable and desirous ofrelational attachments but learn early on how tomask them or fit them around “the boy code.”

In her ethnographic studies of boys duringtwo time periods––early childhood (ages 4-5)and adolescence (ages 12-18)––Chu found evi-dence that relational capabilities detected atinfancy carry through early childhood and into

adolescence. She reconsidered boys’ develop-ment through a relational framework, buildingfrom Gilligan’s research (1996) highlighting thecentrality of relationships in human develop-ment and from Piaget’s research(1929/1979) emphasizing children’s activeparticipation in learning and development.Chu examined boys’ experiences of gendersocialization from the boys’ perspectives, andexplored how boys negotiate their senses ofself, behaviors, and relationships in light ofcultural constructions of masculinity.

We have to start very young withboys. Sometimes adolescent boyscommunicate with silence. We knowthat boys crave connection and, if wecan find ways to make it safe, theycan expand themselves.

-- Denise Glyn BordersSenior VP & Group Director

U.S. Education Workforce DevelopmentAcademy for Educational Development

Chu noted that there is a shift in boys’ pres-ence in relationships during early childhoodthat reflects how they are actively reading, tak-ing in, and responding to their culture, particu-larly constructions of masculinity. Through theireveryday experiences with peers and adults,

4

boys learn what is considered appropriate anddesirable behavior for boys, and also the con-sequences of deviating from accepted norms.As boys adapt to society and culture, theyseem to go from “presence to pretense via pos-turing.” They learn to anticipate how others willrespond to them and accordingly modify theirself-expression and styles of relating to others.They become more selective and strategicabout what they reveal of themselves and towhom. They begin to shield their relationalcapabilities in order to protect their vulnerabili-ty. She emphasized, however, that boys’ “rela-tional” capabilities are not “lost.”

At adolescence, boys’ relationalcapabilities may be more difficult todetect, but they persist nonetheless.Contrary to stereotypes that tend todepict adolescent boys as emotional-ly deficient and relationally defunct,adolescent boys are very capable ofthoughtful self-reflection and deepinterpersonal understanding.

-- Judy ChuResearch Scientist & Lecturer

Stanford University

Chu suggested the need to distinguish com-promise from over-compromise. Compromise

implies a conscious decision to alter one’sbehavior (e.g., in order to fit in or get alongwith others), and is necessary and common inmost social interactions. Boys may compro-mise their behaviors without losing their senseof self or jeopardizing their integrity. Over-compromise implies an unconscious, or auto-matic and socialized, accommodation of soci-etal norms and expectations. Boys who haveover-compromised themselves may feel discon-nected from their own thoughts, feelings, anddesires such that it is easier for them (andsometimes a point of pride) to be what othersexpect than to figure out what they want forthemselves. Over-compromise can have psy-chological costs and social consequences tothe extent that boys subsequently become unac-countable to themselves and to others. Most ofthe boys in Chu’s study were primarily strug-gling with compromise and, in their interviewssimply wanted to know, "Am I okay? Am I nor-mal?"

While conducting research for her book,Why Boys Don’t Talk and Why We Care: AMother’s Guide to Connection, Susan Shafferfound that despite boys’ apparent disengage-ment and separation at the onset of adoles-cence, they want to stay connected to schooland family but in a different way than girls. Inconducting focus groups with adolescent boys

5

aged 14-16, Shaffer noted that at first theboys said nothing, and then they started toopen up and commented, “No one ever asksus these questions.”

She described the limited definition of mas-culinity that boys have available to them,namely physical strength and competition, withboys of color having even fewer options. Boystend to define themselves in opposition to oth-ers and see anything female as not acceptable.

We don't help boys develop the lan-guage of feelings. The culturedemeans their inner lives. If youhave feelings or are sensitive youare not an authentic boy, you don'tfit in. Boys halve themselves by dis-avowing qualities as they get older;anything that is feminine is not aboy. Mothers feel that they can't relyon their own instincts on what isgood for their sons.

-- Susan ShafferDeputy Director & Director of Gender Equity Programs

Mid-Atlantic Equity Center

The Growing Crisis in Boys’Education

In the late 1990s, books began to appearthat illuminated concerns about boys’social/emotional development and school per-formance. Books such as Real Boys: RescuingOur Sons from the Myths of Masculinity (Pollack,1998); Raising Cain: Protecting the EmotionalLife of Boys (Kindlon & Thompson, 1999); andBad Boys: Public Schools in the Making of BlackMasculinity (Ferguson, 2000) raised questionsabout the impact of gender expectations onboys’ social and academic well-being. In 1998,Gallas, and others earlier (Paley, 1984; Best1983), noted that, while boys may dominate theclassroom, they are lost to the community oflearning (Koch & Irby, 2002).

Gender and equity issues cross everymajor area in education. As an edu-cator for over 30 years, I have sat inevery seat and seen how genderissues play out in classrooms.

--- Denise Glyn BordersSenior VP & Group Director

U.S. Education Workforce DevelopmentAcademy for Educational Development

6

A concept paper written in preparation forEEC’s initiative on Raising and EducatingHealthy Boys (Flood, 2001), cites the disturb-ing facts that boys:

• lag behind girls in reading and writing(Newkirk, 2000);• are more likely to be referred to a schoolpsychologist (Kindlon & Thompson, 1999); • are more likely to be diagnosed with atten-tion deficit disorder/attention deficit disorderwith hyperactivity (Diller, 1998); • represent 70% of students with learningdisabilities and 80% of those with social/emo-tional disturbances (Sadker & Sadker, 1994); • represent 70% of school suspensions, par-ticularly minority males in urban schools(Ferguson, 2000); and • commit 85% of the school violence andcomprise the majority of victims of that vio-lence (Katz, 1999).

The remainder of this report discusses this cri-sis in boys’ education in the following areas:

P Gender and LiteracyP Viewing Boys as “Problems”

in SchoolP Viewing Rates of Early Expulsion

Affecting Young Boys

P The Effect of Educational Policy onSchool Culture and the RelationalAspects of Teacher’s Work

Gender and Literacy

Recently, stories about the widening litera-cy gap between boys and girls haveappeared in both the popular and education-al press. A report issued in fall 2004 by theU.S. Department of Education cites findingsthat boys score 16 points lower in readingand 24 points lower in writing than girls. TheNational Assessment of Educational Progresswriting tests revealed that three-fourths of thegap has opened up by grade 4 (Newkirk,2003).

Reading at Risk, a study released by theNational Endowment of the Arts in summer2004, found that while overall book readingfor young women is down 4 percent, the gapfor males plunged 12 points in the decadebetween 1992 and 2002. In 2003 and2004, USA Today ran end-of-year editorialson boys’ academic struggles and their lack ofinvolvement in many aspects of school life. Inits editorials, USA Today stresses the need formore research into the causes of boys’achievement gap and puts out a clarion callfor raising awareness. “Closing this gender

7

gap,” they state, “first requires awareness—byteachers, principals and parents. Only thencan targeted solutions be developed. Amongthem: reading interventions that start earlyenough to reverse boys’ academic slide” (USAToday, December 22, 2003).

I’d like to start a campaign called“Read Like a Girl.” Until the thingsthat girls are good at are not deni-grated, we’re not going to haveboys reading. Just as girls are notnaturally deficient at science andmath, boys are not naturally badreaders. It’s a matter of attitude andperception.

-- Michelle PorcheResearch Scientist

Wellesley Centers for Women

At the invitational meeting, MichellePorche, a researcher at the Wellesley Centersfor Women, noted that there are both raceand class dimensions to school achievementwhere disadvantaged boys and boys of colorare in the lowest achievement group inregards to literacy. Porche, in collaborationwith colleagues at the Harvard GraduateSchool of Education, is exploring genderedaspects of academic achievement in a sample

of low-income students. The boys and girls inthe sample were evenly matched in readingability at the beginning of the study, and apti-tude as measured on standardized literacytests tended to remain constant from preschoolthrough middle school. Over time, however,boys’ literacy attitudes and practices fellbehind those of the girls.

The research team analyzed results ofobservations of story-reading to pre-school-age children, finding that, in this study, moth-ers took a more serious approach in readingto daughters. Mothers tended to have higherexpectations for girls, asking them more chal-lenging questions and working with girls tounderstand the meaning conveyed by thewords. The research team identified mothers’subtle messages that reading was for girls andrough and tumble play for boys. In interviews,boys talked about their own reading practicesand revealed that they were more interested innon-school reading materials. Their attitudewas, “Reading is for girls” and “I'm a boy andno one tells me what to do.” Porche plans toexplore ways to address reading difficultiesthrough the use of high-interest reading mate-rials that are gender-specific in their audience.

In another gender equity study in whichPorche participated, urban seventh gradersdocumented their attitudes towards school

8

9

through questionnaires, focus groups, inter-views and classroom observations. Both boysand girls said that boys need more help, andthat girls are more responsible. Unlike girlswho talked about having many responsibilities,boys were not concerned about “being smart,”and were not “plan-ful” about how they wouldsucceed. Boys said that they liked to do groupwork with girls because girls would listen to theteacher and knew the instructions. Boys saidthat they always knew there was someone elsewho would take responsibility. They could askthe teacher to repeat the instructions a fewmore times, and the teacher would do itbecause their attitude is “boys don’t listen.”

Oralia Puente, a consultant for MSI-Management Systems, reported on a gender-based research study looking at the under-achievement of boys in Jamaica, whereresearch showed boys’ low literacy rate andhigh rates of learning disabilities to be majorproblems, similar to the United States. InJamaica, Puente noted that boys and girls havevery definite gender roles perpetuated from avery young age, and by sixth-grade boys startto score very low on literacy tests. Girls areencouraged to stay in school and go on to col-lege but upon entering the workforce, boys aremore likely to get the jobs.

There are stages of developmenttoward gender equality that wereused in the study – gender, genderparity, equity, and equality. Equity isthe means to get there. Equality isthe result.

-- Oralia PuenteSenior Associate

MSI - Management Systems, Inc.

Viewing Boys as“Problems” in School

At the meeting, Shaffer described her find-ings that teachers perceive boys as “problems,difficult, and taking up more than their shareof room in the classroom.” Part of the reasonbehind these perceptions, she explained, isthat students are forced to sit in a chair for themajority of the day. Shaffer states that boys atthe age of 10 need five recess periods perday, but the typical punishment when a boymisbehaves is taking away recess, and, withthe increasing academic pressure to performwell on tests, many schools are doing awaywith recess altogether.

Another way schools deal with “problems”is through special education, which results in adisproportionate over-representation of

African-American and Latino malesenrolled in those classes (Conference onMinorities in Special Education, 2001). Inan article in Education Week, Rosa Smithcalls this issue “the litmus test for No ChildLeft Behind” (October 30, 2002). In TheAmerican Prospect, Smith reports that in2000-01, African-American boys made up8.6 percent of the national public-schoolenrollments, but 20 percent of those classi-fied as mentally retarded, 21 percent ofthose classified as emotionally disturbed,22 percent of those expelled from school,and 23 percent of those suspended.

The predominance of African-American and Latino boys placedin special education, primarily forreasons of discipline, makes themunmotivated and dispirited, andfew of them earn a high schooldiploma. The system perpetuatesgenerations of youth with lowself-esteem and poor basic skillswho turn to gang membership forthe sense of belonging that thelarger society doesn’t provide.

-- Nancy NevárezProgram Officer

Academy for Educational Development

Constantly seeing boys as problems affectsattitudes toward literacy as well. As Shaffernoted at the meeting, “On average, boyslearn their letters later than girls, but we don'tlook at this as a development issue but as aproblem.” Thomas Newkirk discusses “devel-opmental delay” in his Education Week arti-cle, “The Quiet Crisis in Boys’ Literacy.”Although it is accepted knowledge that boysgenerally develop the skills necessary for read-ing and writing later than girls, no accommo-dation is made. Instead, the early childhoodcurriculum grows ever more academic andpays less attention to critical issues of childdevelopment (Newkirk, 2003).

Shaffer asks, “What happens to boyswhen they don't do well in school?” They feelshame, and when they feel shame they disen-gage. As a result, she says, boys become lessemotionally connected to their families andschools.

High Rates of Early ExpulsionAffecting Young Boys

It is well known that detention, suspension,expulsion and drop-out rates of boys at thehigh school level are very high, especially forAfrican-American and Latino boys from low-

10

income families (Smith, 2004). What is notwell-known is that the problem begins as earlyas the preschool level.

One of our research questions was,“Have you ever expelled a studentfrom preschool in the last 12months?” We defined expelled as"told to leave the program forever,never to come back, not part of aplanned transition to other class orprogram." The answers were quitestartling and reveal that many boysare never even given a chance.

-- Walter GilliamAssistant Professor of Child Psychiatry

and PsychologyYale University Child Study center

At the meeting, Walter Gilliam, assistantprofessor of child psychiatry & psychology atthe Yale University Child Study Center, present-ed shocking statistics from his national pre-Kstudy. Data from 4,000 randomly selectedclassrooms showed a national average of 60students expelled for every 10,000 studentsenrolled in pre-K programs––three times theaverage of K-12 expulsion rate nationally.When the pre-K data was disaggregated byincome, race and gender, it showed that

African-American children were expelled at arate of 112 per 10,000 children enrolled;White children at a rate of 50 per 10,000;and Latino children at a rate of 45 per 10,000children. African-American boys wereexpelled at a rate of 160 per 10,000 chil-dren, and boys were five times more likely tobe expelled than girls.

The number of expelled or suspended pre-school children was higher than Gilliamexpected and much higher than expulsionrates for K-12. In Massachusetts, the pilot statefor the study, 8 out of 10,000 K-12 studentswere expelled, while a random sample of childcare and preschool programs in Massachusettsexpelled 274 per 10,000 students.

Gilliam offered a number of reasons forthis high rate. Massachusetts pre-school pro-grams are targeted to low-income, at-risk chil-dren and are taught by teachers without aca-demic degrees (pre-school teachers rarelyhave a bachelor or associate degree).Teachers and students have no access to sup-port services and, unlike K-12th grades,school attendance is not compulsory. In addi-tion, in K-12, it is the state’s responsibility toprovide a free education, but it is the parent’slegal responsibility to keep their children inschool. The state’s responsibility, however,does not extend to preschool.

11

The Effect of Educational Policy onSchool Culture and RelationalAspects of Teaching

The importance of relational teaching asthe key to creating a community of learnerswas a topic that participants returned tomany times during the meeting. They also dis-cussed the barriers to teachers’ understand-ing and addressing students’ individualneeds in the current No Child Left Behind(NCLB) test-driven and standardized environ-ment. Participants maintained that NCLB hasled to a “push down” of the academic cur-riculum and a focus on high-stakes testing:

• A “top down” approach to education is theprevailing mode. (For example, the U.S.Department of Education mandates specific lit-eracy models. Funding can be withdrawn if aschool chooses a different approach.)

• Increasingly, the “corporate model” of edu-cation is prevailing, which de-professionalizesthe teaching profession by creating “teacherproof” programs and de-emphasizes the rela-tional aspect of teaching.

• One of the consequences of increased stan-dardization and the emphasis on quantitativeassessment measures is the narrowing of cur-riculum to fit the standardized tests; teachersare “teaching to the test.”

• Measurement is driving the culture of schoolsand having a negative impact on the commu-nity.

• The disappearance of certain content areaslike social studies and physical education is asymptom of the pressures to standardize andteach to the test.

Teachers are under pressure interms of academics being pusheddown into kindergarten––in somekindergarten classrooms, childrenare now expected to read and writefor more than one hour a day, andrecess is being eliminated in manyplaces. In the current climate, manyteachers feel they cannot adequate-ly attend to social-emotional issues.

-- Nancy GropperDirector

Preservice Program in Early Childhood &Childhood Education

Bank Street Graduate School of Education

12

13

Miriam Raider-Roth, assistant professor,SUNY Albany, discussed her research on howthe relational life of a classroom shapes learn-ing. She described a study group of teachers,pre-K through high school, who came togetherfor one year on a monthly basis. At each meet-ing they described individual boys in theirclasses, using a case study method called theDescriptive Review process. The researchfocused on three central questions:

• How do teachers understand the ways theirrelationships with boys shape learning?

• How do teachers see themselves when con-sidering their relationships with boys?

• How do notions of gender shape the teach-ers' conceptions of relationships?

Three themes arose out of the teachers'observations and descriptions: 1) locating,appreciating, and preserving boys’ individual-ity while at the same time confronting pres-sures teachers face to act as a force of encul-turation; 2) Considering how teachers inte-grate the influence of gender on their identityand practice; 3) Investigating why and howteachers express certainty and confidence inrelation to the research questions, and why

and how they express uncertainty or confusionabout the issues.

At first, teachers experienced resist-ance to seeing the boys as genderedbecause when you start seeing theboy as gendered, then you have tosee yourself, the teacher, as gen-dered and it is difficult to do that in aschool setting.

-- Miriam Raider-RothAssistant Professor

University at Albany, SUNY

As the teachers began to see the boys asgendered, the notion of resistance came for-ward. As the teachers’ relationships with eachother developed, the resistance subsided andthey confronted key issues, such as the strongemotions that boys can elicit and their ownresistance to their school’s definitions of gen-der for themselves and for their students.Teachers reported that there was an overallshift in their relationship with the observed stu-dent. Their understanding of boys hadchanged.

Participants agreed that teacher educationprograms were not doing a good job of foster-ing teacher awareness of the important rela-tional aspects of their work and helping them

learn to form positive relationships with stu-dents. They also agreed that, while many boyshave learned that to be “out” of a relationshipwith a teacher is safer, “students learn bestwhen they have a relationship with a teacher.”

A learning environment shouldencourage all students to takeresponsibility – to be a witness tothemselves as a learner. Yes, litera-cy is very important, but acknowl-edgment of each individual child iswhat matters.

-- Jane AndriasEducational Consultant

Call to Action

The consensus at the meeting was thatthere is, indeed, a growing crisis in boys’education, and that early childhood, a high-risk time for boys, is an opportune time tointervene. A two-pronged strategy was rec-ommended that would combine a research-action agenda and a broad communicationscampaign with the goal of applying lessonslearned to teacher training, educationalpractice, and continuing research.Participants noted that changes in attitudes

and beliefs most likely will take place incre-mentally over several years, and that it isnecessary to reach a diverse community inorder to do so. It is the aim of this report toprovide a call to action for policy makers,educators, researchers and the general pub-lic. A concerted effort is needed on severalfronts if we are to create the changes neces-sary in order to raise and educate healthyboys.

My 13-year-old son wears his hearton his sleeve. I see him trying on dif-ferent roles, especially the “toughguy” role, which is so out-of-charac-ter for him. I think about what boysgo through at different stages,struggling to fit it in.

-- Linda ColónProgram Manager

Educational Equity Center at AED

14

b

15

Research Agenda

• Conduct a literature review/meta-analysis ofexisting research, including a bibliography ofexisting references and resources, in order toprovide educators, researchers and policy-makers with an overview of the issues and theparticular areas that need to be addressed.

• Identify new research questions and under-take a research-focused agenda with the goalof creating a more holistic approach to evalu-ating cognitive, social, and emotional growth.

Communications Campaign

• Pursue a social marketing approach to helpcommunicate research results to diverse audi-ences. Possibilities include tapping into popculture and media; creating public serviceannouncements and billboards; and reachingout to parents through websites, pediatricianoffices and federal programs serving low-income mothers.

• Develop a website to reach out to a broadaudience, including day care providers, after-school programs, counselors, teachers, andparents.

• Hold a National Learning Institute onRaising and Educating Healthy Boys thatwould bring key constituents together includ-ing researchers, teachers, and teacher andparent educators.

• Build strategic partnerships with other organ-izations including the medical, legal, business,media, children’s television and public rela-tions communities; and co-present at educa-tional and research conferences.

• Produce a publication for a general audi-ence that would draw upon already publishedmaterials in the form of an anthology or asourcebook.

We believe that boys can be pas-sionate, strong, and connected. Ourjob as teachers and parents is tohelp boys develop the connection.Developing empathy in boys is thebest antidote to violence.

-- Susan ShafferDeputy Director & Director of Gender Equity Programs

Mid-Atlantic Equity Center

Newkirk, T. (2003). The quiet crisis in boys’ literacy. Education Week, September 10, 2003.

Paley, V.G. (1992). You can’t say you can’t play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Piaget, J. (1929/1979). The child’s conception of the world. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Pollack, W. (1998). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. New York: Random House.

Porche, M.V., Ross, S.J. & C.E. Snow (2004). From preschool to middle school: The role of masculin-ity in low-income urban adolescent boys’ literacy skills and academic achievement. In Adolescent boys: Exploring diverse cultures of boyhood. Ed. N. Way & J. Y. Chu. New York: NewYork University Press.

Pimentel, A. (2004). Supporting boys’ resilience: A dialogue with researchers, practitioners, and themedia. New York: Ms. Foundation for Women.

Raider-Roth, M. (2003, April). Knowing their journey: Understanding the complexities of teachingboys, a documentary account. Paper presented at the American Educational Research AssociationAnnual Conference, Chicago.

Sadker, D. & M. Sadker (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls. New York:MacMillan.

Shaffer, S. M.& L. P. Gordon (2000). Why boys don’t talk and why we care: A mother’s guide toconnection. Chevy Chase, MD: Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium, Inc.

Smith, R.A.(2002). Black boys: The litmus test for “No Child Left Behind.” Education Week, October30, 2002.

Smith. R. A. (2004). Saving black boys: The elusive promises of public education. The AmericanProspect, February 2004.

Spencer, R., Porche, M.V., & D. Tolman (2003). Yout’ve come a long way…maybe: New challengesfor gender equity in education. Teachers College Record 105 (9), 1774-1807.

USA Today (2003). Boys’ academic slide calls for accelerated attention. Editorial, USA Today,December 22, 2003.

USA Today (2004). Pay closer attention: Boys are struggling academically. Editorial, USA Today,December 3, 2004.

U.S. Department of Education (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls and women: 2004.Washington, DC: author.

USAID/Jamaica (2005). A gender analysis of the educational achievement of boys and girls in theJamaican educational system. Report prepared by EQUATE Project, MSI Managment SystemsInternational. EGAT/NID Basic Education, Contract # GEW 1-01-00021. US Agency forInternational Development.

Way, N. & J. Y. Chu, eds. (2004). Adolescent boys: Exploring diverse cultures of boyhood.New York: New York University Press.

17

Best, R. (1983). We’ve all got scars: What boys and girls learn in elementary school. Indianapolis:University of Indiana Press.

Chu, J. Y. (2000). Learning what boys know: An observational and interview study with six fouryear-old boys. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Chu, J.Y. (1992, 1998 rev ed). Men's work: How to stop the violence that tears our lives apart. Center City, MN: Hazelden.

Conference on Minorities in Special Education (2001). Harvard Civil Rights Project, March 2001.

Creighton, A. & P. Kivel (1992). Helping teens stop violence: A practical guide for counselors, edu-cators, and parents. Alameda, CA: Hunter House.

Diller, L.H. (1998). Pills for kids sound alarm bells in suburbs. USA Today, November 12, 1998.

Ferguson, A. (2000). Bad boys: Public school in the making of black masculinity. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.

Flood, C. P. (2001). Raising and educating healthy boys. Concept Paper. New York: EducationalEquity Concepts, Inc.

Flood, C. P. & S. Shaffer (2000). Safe boys, safe schools. WEEA Digest. Newton, MA: Women’sEducational Equity Act (WEEA) Resource Center at EDC, November 2000.

Gallas, K. (1998). Sometimes I can be anything: Power, gender, and identity in a primaryclassroom. The practitioner inquiry series. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gilliam, W. S. & G. Shahar (in press). Prekindergarten expulsion and suspension: Rates and predic-tors in one state. Infants and Young Children.

Gilligan, C. (1996). Centrality of relationship in human development: A puzzle, some evidence, anda theory. In Noam, G. & Fischer, K. (Eds.). Development and vulnerability in close relationships.Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gropper, N. (2004). Raising and educating healthy boys: Analysis of focus groups held with teach-ers and parents in urban and suburban settings. New York: Educational Equity Concepts, Inc.

Katz, J. (1999). Tough guise: Violence, media & the crisis in masculinity. Media EducationFoundation.

Kindlon, D. & M. Thompson (1999). Raising Cain: Protecting the emotional life of boys. New York:Ballantine Books.

Koch, J. and B. Irby (eds.) (2002). Defining and redefining gender equity in education. Greenwich,CT: Infoage Publishing.

National Endowment for the Arts (2004). Reading at risk: A survey of literary reading in America.Summer 2004.

Newkirk, T. (2000). Misreading masculinity: Speculations on the great gender gap in writing.Language Arts, March 2000.

16

References

Appendices

Meeting Agenda

Meeting Participants

Raising and Educating Healthy BoysStrategic Planning Meeting

November 4-5, 2004, New York CityAgenda

Thursday, November 4th3:00 Welcome and Introductions

Denise Borders, U.S. Education and Workforce Development Group, AEDMerle Froschl and Barbara Sprung, Educational Equity Center at AED

Introductory RemarksLuba Lynch, A. L. Mailman Family FoundationSusan Wefald, Ms. Foundation for Women

Program Overview Merle Froschl and Barbara Sprung

3:45 Raising and Educating Healthy Boys – Focus Group FindingsDr. Nancy Gropper, Bank Street College of Education

4:00 Participant Presentations

5:30 Summary of Key Points

6:00 Reception and Dinner

6:45 Recent Trends – Small Group Discussion & Report Back• Educational policy• Teacher education• School culture/curriculum

7:30 -8:00 Summary of Recent Trends

Friday, November 5th8:30 Breakfast

9:00 Creating an Optimal Vision for Raising and Educating Healthy Boys – Small GroupDiscussion & Report Back

• In school• In the family• In the community

10:45 Break

11:00 Barriers to Reaching the Vision

12:00 Lunch

1:00 - 1:30 Summary of Barriers

1:30 - 3:30 Creating an Action Plan – Small Group Discussion & Report Back

3:30 - 4:00 Next Steps

Raising and Educating Health Boys – Strategic Planning MeetingNovember 4-5, 2004

Participants List

Jane AndriasEducational Consultant70 West 95th Street, #23ENew York, NY 10025212-865-4261janeandrias@aol.com

Denise Glyn BordersSenior VP & Group DirectorU.S. Education Workforce DevelopmentAcademy for Educational Development1825 Connecticut Avenue, 10th Fl.Washington, DC 20009202-884-8520dborders@aed.org

Judy ChuResearch Scientist & LecturerStanford University370 Arkansas StreetSan Francisco, CA 94107415-824-0224judy.chu@stanfordalumni.org

Linda ColónProgram ManagerEducational Equity Center @AED100 Fifth Avenue, 8th Fl.New York, NY 10011212-367-4572lcolon@aed.org

Barbara D. FinbergVice PresidentMEM Associates521 Fifth Avenue, 17th FloorNew York, NY 10021212-292-4305

Merle FroschlCo-DirectorEducational Equity Center @ AED100 Fifth Avenue, 8th Fl.New York, NY 10011212-367-4598mfroschl@aed.org

Walter S. GilliamAssistant Professor of Child Psychiatryand Psychology Yale University Child Study Center230 South Frontage RoadP.O. Box 207900New Haven, CT 06520-7900203-785-3384Walter.Gilliam@Yale.edu

Nancy GropperDirectorPreservice Program in Early Childhood

& Childhood EducationBank Street Graduate School ofEducation610 West 112th StreetNew York, NY 10025212-875-4477ngropper@bnkst.edu

Luba H. LynchExecutive DirectorA.L. Mailman Family Foundation707 Westchester AvenueWhite Plains, NY 10604914-683-8089llynch@mailman.org

Nancy NevárezProgram OfficerAcademy for Educational Development100 Fifth Avenue, 8th FloorNew York, NY 10011212-367-4579nnevarez@aed.org

Michelle PorcheResearch ScientistWellesley Centers for Women106 Central Street, Cheever HouseWellesley, MA 02481781-283-2498mporche@wellesley.edu

Oralia PuenteSenior AssociateMSI - Management Systems, Inc.600 Water Street, S.W.Washington, DC 20024202-484-7170Oraliapuente@aol.com

Miriam Raider-RothAssistant ProfessorUniversity at Albany, SUNYEDU 115A, 1400 Washington Ave.Albany, NY 12222518-442-5961mroth@uamail.albany.edu

Susan ShafferDeputy Director & Director of GenderEquity ProgramsMid-Atlantic Equity Center5454 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 655Chevy Chase, MD 20815301-657-7741 x108sshaffer@maec.org

Barbara SprungCo-DirectorEducational Equity Center @ AED100 Fifth Avenue, 8th Fl.New York, NY 10011212-367-4585bsprung@aed.org

Susan WefaldDirector of Institutional PlanningMs. Foundation for Women120 Wall Street, 33rd Fl.New York, NY 10005212-709-4431swefald@ms.foundation.org

The Academy for Educational Development (AED)Founded in 1961, AED is an independent, nonprofit organization committed to addressinghuman development needs in the United States and throughout the world through education,research, training, social marketing, policy analysis, and innovative program design.www.aed.org

The Educational Equity Center at AED (EEC/AED)EEC, a national, nonprofit organization founded in 1982, joined AED in 2004 to form theEducational Equity Center. The mission of the Center is to eliminate inequalities that createbarriers to children’s learning. The Center offers professional development andcurricular materials for educators, parents, and community organizations serving studentsPreK-grade 8 in school and afterschool settings. EEC/AED also designs and implementsresearch, technical assistance and dissemination projects to further public understanding ofthe need for equal opportunity for all children regardless of gender, race/ethnicity, disabil-ity or level of family income. EEC at AED is located within AED’s Center for School andCommunity Services in New York City.www.edequity.org

100 Fifth Avenue • New York, NY 10011