The gender article I chose is not what I would think of as a
typical gender difference in schools. The article “‘Not Just Boring
Stories’: Reconsidering the Gender Gap For Boys” by Donna Lester Taylor (Journal
of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, December 2004/January 2005) was about how
boys are not reading at grade level by eighth grade. The author compared this
problem to the disparity of girls’ scores in math and science that schools have
sought to rectify the past few decades (which has worked—that gap is closed
now). It’s not that boys can’t read—they read all the time—but, since they
aren’t interested in, and therefore don’t “get”, the classic literature
embedded in curriculum and reading tests, they have identified themselves as
poor readers. And if they think that they are poor readers, then they will have
low self-efficacy about reading in general. The author had some very
interesting points about how curriculum should be expanded to include a variety
of text styles such as magazines, internet, and informative/non-fiction
readings. One of the most interesting things I learned from this article is the
difference in how boys and girls read
the same text. Boys will read to gather information and girls will read to
dissect relationships. With this new knowledge, I imagine the different
reactions when a book like Pride and Prejudice is assigned. Suddenly, I understand “the shudder”
that so many males give as a reaction.
 |
| Visit Guysread.com |
Since becoming an elementary school librarian, I have,
somewhat grudgingly, come to accept that the evidence proves that boys read a
certain kind of book and girls read another kind of book—therefore, there are
“girl books” and “boy books”. I have come to this knowledge grudgingly, because
I don’t like to show gender bias in anything—let alone when suggesting books to
readers. But this article further confirms that the evidence is there. This article
suggests that teachers should use a variety of texts within their assignments
to appeal to boys as well as girls, and also suggests choosing topics of
interest to boys. Common Core requires a variety of text types since this
article was written, so hopefully this change to our curriculum will positively
affect boys’ reading scores. I’m not sure if Jon Scieszka’s website
Guysread.com existed yet when this article was written, but I wish it was
listed as a resource. Guysread.com is solely dedicated to boy books, boy humor,
and helping guys find books that they are interested in.
Not surprisingly, the LGBTQ article, “Sissies, Faggots,
Lezzies, and Dykes: Gender, Sexual Orientation, and a New Politics of
Education?” by Catherine A. Lugg (Education Administration Quarterly, February
2003) also included quite a bit of discussion about gender in addition to
sexual orientation in school. This article enlightened me about a very specific
area of study called queer legal theory (QLT). Lugg explores the relationship
of education policy and how it intersects with QLT. Since it is only through
laws that education policy is shaped (another thing that I have not
contemplated before), the purpose of her article is to explore the history of
legal mandates shaping current education policy regarding sexual orientation
and gender, so that education policy makers can use QLT to have a framework for
a future agenda to affect policy change “for a better, more equitable future
for all” (p. 124).
