Sandra Stotsky Columnist EdNews.org

Paper presented at Conference of Association of Literary Scholars and Critics - San Francisco, California

October 13, 2006

One of the many current controversies in education concerns the reality and dimensions of a new gender gap—the differences between boys and girls, and between men and women, in their reading skills and reading interests.One of my special interests as an education researcher and teacher educator has long been the K-12 literature curriculum—the specific literary and non-literary texts assigned in grades 5 to 12, and the pedagogy guiding their study.

The purpose of this paper is to indicate the empirical support for considering the content and pedagogy for the K-12 literature curriculum as a major influence on the growing gap between boys' and girls' reading skills as well as on the general decline in academic achievement—two distinct though related phenomena.Whether or not the word crisis can be used for the gap, the growing differences have not been manufactured.Nor are they artifacts of a phenomenon that some have described as: everyone's doing better, it's just that more girls than boys are doing better.Sara Mead's 2006 report, issued by The Education Sector, makes the specious claim that because, numerically, more boys are doing better than before (e.g., in going on to college), there is no basis for concern, even though, she concedes, scores for both are declining on high school reading tests.

In this paper, I first refer to a few general educational indices and several specific studies of reading to underline the reality of the gender gap in reading.I also briefly note the consistent research findings over the years on the differences between boys and girls in reading interests.Although we know nothing systematic on a national scale about what students read in school today, I indicate what we can learn about the focus of secondary English and reading classes from an analysis of current K-12 standards in literature, in Arkansas as well as in the rest of the nation.An analysis of these mostly vague, content-free standards suggests not only why the gender gap may be growing, but also why reading may be declining among both females and males.

The Gender Gap: General Educational Indices

For starters, let's begin with special education.Nationally, about 13% of our students receive special education services, and three out of four of students diagnosed for learning disabilities are boys.[1]Boys also predominate among low achievers; although the percentages of low-achieving readers and writers are higher among certain ethnic and racial groups, the gap crosses class, ethnic, and racial lines.For example, in the Rennie Center's 2006 report on the differences in achievement between boys and girls in Massachusetts public schools based on state tests in English and mathematics in grades 4, 7/8, and 10, girls hold a sizable performance advantage over boys across both urban and suburban school districts and across all grade levels, in mathematics as well as reading, with the greatest gaps at the high school level.High school graduation rates also show an increasing gap—now 72% female to 65% male nationally, according to one recent study.And college admission rates are close to 60% to 40% nationally, approaching 65% female to 35% male in some colleges.

The Gender Gap: Research in Reading

According to the most recent assessment of adult literacy in this country, titled the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) and released in December 2005 by the National Center for Education Statistics, the reading skills of American adults have declined dramatically from 1992 to 2003.In fact, the higher the educational level, the bigger the decline in their ability to read ordinary prose, one of the three kinds of literacy assessed by NCES.High school graduates declined 6 points on average, college graduates 11 points, and those with graduate study or graduate degrees 13 points.

NCES wasn't trying to measure how well Americans can read Great Expectations or Native Son; if it had, the decline might have been even greater.To the contrary, the assessment sought to find out how well adults read basic instructions and can do such tasks as comparing viewpoints in two editorials and reading prescription labels.Astonishingly, only 31% of those with graduate study or graduate degrees in 2003 were rated "proficient" in reading prose (i.e., they were able to go beyond a literal understanding of a complex book).In contrast, in a similar assessment in 1992, 41% were rated "proficient," the highest of the four possible ratings.In 2003, only 31% of college graduates could be rated "proficient," compared to 40% in 1992.

NCES did not determine whether these were recent college graduates or not.But, interestingly, those in the age ranges of 18-24 and 24-39 showed on average a decline on two of the three kinds of literacy: prose and document reading.In contrast, those in the two oldest age ranges, from age 50 up, showed increases at both the Intermediate and Proficient level in all three kinds of literacy.

Amazingly, no reporter saw fit to comment on the fact that the decline in literacy skills among college graduates and those with graduate study or degrees rated "proficient" was confined to males. The percentage of highly educated males rated "proficient" in all three kinds of literacy assessed (prose reading, document reading, and quantitative reasoning, as defined by NCES) declined. In contrast, the percentage of highly educated females rated "proficient" in the first two kinds of literacy remained the same, and in the third kind increased somewhat. The NCES study doesn't show the differences in scores between men and women in age ranges, so we do not know whether or to what extent males in older age ranges showed increases.

Results on the main assessment of grade 12 reading achievement by the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2002 suggest that while the decline in reading skills is far more a young male than a young female phenomenon, the decline is occurring among both males and females.From 1992 to 2002, among high school seniors, girls lost two points inreading scores, while boys lost six points, leaving an enormous 16-point differential in their average scores. (NAEP's long-term trend tests in reading show a 14-point differential among 17-year olds.)The growing gap between adolescent boys and girls in their reading skills prompted the National Assessment Governing Board to approve, in August 2004, a special study of gender differences in reading as part of a new research agenda. The study is to examine how different themes, the gender of the main character, and different types of reading selections, among other factors, bear upon the relative reading performance of boys and girls.But even if this study is fully funded by Congress and carried out as proposed, it is unlikely to be completed before NAGB's new reading assessment standards and specifications are implemented, in 2009.

Trend data are available for almost the identical period of time from one other source: a 2004 report by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Titled Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America, the NEA report found major declines in voluntary literary reading for both men and womenbetween 1992 and 2002. But, men and women declined at different rates, considerably widening the gender gap in reading by young adults. While book reading by 18- to 24-year-old women slipped from 63 percent to 59 percent, book reading by 18- to 24-year-old men plummeted from 55 percent to 43 percent, triple the decline for women.

Education experts who have been interviewed by reporters are unable to explain the unexpected results of the NAAL. Nor can they satisfactorily explain the decline and growing gender gap in young adult literary reading or in pre-college reading skills.Some of these experts may not be able to offer an explanation because they do not know what has been taking place in the school curriculum—in the early grades where children are taught how to read and a desire to read is supposed to be inculcated, and in the upper grades where one might expect extensive reading to be assigned and advanced reading skills taught.It is also possible that many education experts cannot objectively evaluate the results of these various assessments because they may be responsible in good part for the decline, through the pedagogy they have taught elementary and secondary teachers in their pre-service or in-service programs in recent decades. In fact, the current K-12 reading and literature curriculum may well be accelerating the decline in boys' reading skills because some of the pedagogical and curriculum changes they introduced are distinctly unfriendly to boys.

Research on Boys and Girls' Reading Interests

Research on children's reading interests goes back almost a century.It shows distinct differences between children and adults and between boys and girls in their literary preferences.According to reading interest surveys, these two sets of differences have been remarkably constant over the course of the past century.  Both boys and girls are unlikely to choose books based on an "issues" approach, confirming what earlier educators and parents were willing to recognize; children are not terribly interested in reading about ways to reform society—or themselves. They do not prefer didactic literature.

Differences between boys and girls in what they like to read clearly emerge as they mature.  Boys have consistently preferred adventure tales, historical nonfiction, science fiction, and biographies, while girls have preferred stories about personal relationships and fantasy. Findings from one of the most recent studies, published in the Journal of Research in Reading in 2002, confirmed that boys read less fiction than girls, preferring books about war and sports and humorous books, although both boys and girls like science fiction and fantasy.

Interestingly, when given choices, boys do not choose titles or stories that feature girls.On the other hand, girls frequently select titles and stories that appeal to boys.  In possibly the largest survey ever undertaken (50,000 students in grades 7 to 12), conducted by a state supervisor of English in New York State in the late 1940s, the four most highly ranked novels by boys in grades 7 to 9 were, in this order, Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, Call of the Wild, and Treasure Island, and by girls in grades 7 to 9, Anne of Green Gables, Secret Garden, Tom Sawyer, and Huckleberry Finn.  These novels were undoubtedly all in the school curriculum at the time. The immense popularity of the Harry Potter series and the film version of the Lord of the Ring trilogy among both boys and girls is consistent with these findings.

The kind of reading that appeals to boys may no longer be readily found in social studies classes, either.Children are rarely assigned biographies of high-achieving individuals unless their achievement reflects the triumph of "social justice" or the overcoming of adversity. Distinguished intellectual achievement is rarely featured.Moreover, the history curriculum has been oriented to socio-cultural topics for about two decades.Children may read about the food, clothing, homes, games, and daily life of Wampanoag and Pilgrim children but are unlikely to read far more exciting political and military history. See, for example, an excerpt from a 2006 Plimoth Plantation Education Newsletter (Appendix A), about its workshops for teachers on Thanksgiving and some of its classroom services.

The interests or concerns of teachers and school librarians, most of whom are female, also affect what is available in classroom or school libraries, as suggested by a 1999 report in Reading Research Quarterly.The study showed a mismatch between the reading preferences of sixth grade students in several middle schools in Texas and what was available in their schools, with both similarities and differences between boys and girls.The limited availability of books of interest to boys in school classrooms and libraries may also reflect the fact that relatively few boys' books have been published in the past 30 years, according to a supplier of children's trade books.

The six major publishers of reading textbooks for K-6 in the mid-1990s were clearly not trying to appeal to boys' reading interests. At that time, I did a comprehensive survey of the contents of the reading selections in their textbooks for grades 4, 5, and 6 and reported the results in a book titled Losing Our Language.The lead characters in their reading selections tell a good part of the story: few strong and active male role models. Gone are the once ubiquitous and inspiring biographies of the most important American presidents, inventors, scientists, and entrepreneurs.Only stories about President Lincoln and George Washington Carver appear. (Carver carries a heavy burden—he apparently represents all of American science in publishers' eyes.)No military valor, no high adventure, no male bonding.On the other hand, stories about adventurous and brave females abound.  Males have a chance at being seen as courageous, daring, and in command only in the occasional science fiction or mystery story, and if they are not cast as a big sister's little brother.  Publishers seem to be more concerned about avoiding "masculine" perspectives or so-called stereotypes than getting boys to like what they are assigned to read.In the absence of systematic information to the contrary, there is no reason to believe the situation is any better today.

Interestingly, although surveys of what students read in English classes were once fairly common, no educational organization or researcher has conducted a national survey of the literary works in the school curriculum for over 15 years.Perhaps our professional educational organizations do not want empirical information available on what is assigned in the contemporary secondary English class.Nevertheless, one can infer from articles in teachers' journals and from lists of trade books sold to the schools that in middle and high school the quality literature students once read has been replaced in part by a genre called Young Adult Literature—short and easy-to-read novels about young teen-agers coping with such problems as drug addiction, teen-age pregnancy, alcoholism, domestic violence, divorced parents, or bullying.  Classical literary fare has also been replaced in part by a genre called "culturally relevant" literature—texts that appeal to students' ethnic group identity on the assumption that sharing the ethnic identity of the lead character will motivate them to read.However, there is no evidence from any source (e.g., NAEP test scores, SAT verbal scores) that either "culturally relevant" reading fare or Young Adult Literature has made boys or girls eager readers, never mind better readers.

One wonders if boys, in particular, by the time they go on to high school, have developed much real interest in reading about the fictional lives, thoughts, and feelings of mature men and women in high quality prose written for book-reading adults—and have been sufficiently motivated by an exciting plot to persist in the struggle they will have with the vocabulary that goes with it.It can happen with the right work, as a new teacher in a Boston high school told me over 10 years ago.

A graduate of a major university and a member of a minority group himself, he found no interest by his mainly African Americans and Hispanic students in Their Eyes Were Watching God, the novel required for his grade 9 classes."It's boring," "I can't understand the dialect," or " I don't understand what's it's all about"—he was told.In despair, he decided to abandon the novel and start them on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.He suddenly had students who couldn't wait to read and discuss the next chapter even though the novel's vocabulary is staggeringly difficult.Not only did his students read the whole novel, they willingly did the vocabulary work he prepared for them day after day.Unfortunately, depressed by the entire official literature curriculum, he left teaching altogether after that year and went to law school.

In contrast to what students in the public schools seem to be reading, home-schoolers—about 40% of whom are now estimated to have "liberal" parents—may be reading entirely different fare. In a 2005 Wall Street Journal article, Mark Oppenheimer points out that the two most possibly read authors by home-schoolers are Laura Ingalls Wilder and G.A.Henty. Wilder wrote the seven "Little House on the Prairie" books, published from 1932 to 1943, excerpts from which are often in mainstream instructional readers.George Alfred Henty, a Victorian Englishman, wrote about 70 books in which teenage boys get caught up in important events such as the Crusades or the American Civil War.PrestonSpeed, a Pennsylvania publishing house founded in 1996 to bring Henty's works back into print, has sold about 25,000 copies of each of the 45 books they've so far reissued.The instructional readers I examined in the mid-1990s contained nothing by Henty.

How Literature Is Taught in the Schools Today

We have basically no information on what is taught in English classes today, either from surveys or from state standards, as I discovered from a 2004 review of state English standards, because the vast majority of states have virtually content-free literature standards and no suggested core reading lists.But we can learn a great deal from the public documents containing them, as painful as reading these documents is.Standards-writing committees can beg off tackling the task of outlining the substantive content of a K-12 literature curriculum (e.g., specific genres, historical periods, and literary traditions if not authors or titles) on the grounds that it is too difficult to work out an agreement on cultural content, or that an outline with any cultural markers violates local control of curriculum, or that each teacher should decide what to teach in light of specific student "needs" or teacher interests.Nevertheless, standards-writing committees have to put down some set of statements to acknowledge that literature is still being taught in K-12 and to guide the construction of state assessments. We learn from the standards in these state documents what those who drew them up (usually active members of the National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association or education school faculty) think matters for a curriculum framework.That something turns out to be the pedagogy used by the teacher. And where does that pedagogy come from?From theories on literary study in the academic world.

Before I give examples that I believe show the influence of those theories, I want to point out that what you will see is how these theories have been digested by K-12 educators.Literary scholars and well-trained, experienced high school English teachers are rarely if ever in charge of writing a state's literature standards.As a result, most statements proffered as literature standards are a reflection of how people relatively or wholly untrained in literary study have interpreted complex and nuanced academic theories. What they present as standards tend to be simplistic, pretentious, or grossly exaggerated interpretations of these theories, bordering on caricature.

Many current K-12 literature standards interpret the "new historicism" as an almost obsessive pre-occupation with the author and context of a text.E.g., Nebraska wants students to "analyze how a literary work reflects the authors' personal history, attitudes, and/or beliefs." Tennessee wants them to "recognize the influence of an author's background, gender, environment, audience, and experience on a literary work."Nevada wants them to "make "inferences…about an author's cultural and historical perspectives."It is not clear exactly what such standards mean or how a teacher teaches to them. Or how students with only the literary text in front of them can perform the kind of analysis the standard asks for. Although the writers of such standards reasonably want an interpretation of a literary text to be informed by its "historical and cultural contexts," no document ever suggests that students read contemporary primary sources or the author's autobiography in order to explore the historical and cultural context for a literary work or the inspiration for it. In effect, this approach turns the English class into an ersatz social studies class taught by a teacher untrained in history or the social sciences.

As interpreted by K-12 educators, the new historicism seems to promote a wary attitude toward what is read.From an early age on, students are encouraged to view a literary work as little more than an expression of the author's prejudices.E.g., New Mexico wants students to "recognize the point of view of the author by considering alternative points of view or reasons [for] remaining fair-minded and open to other interpretations." Washington wants them to "integrate information from difference sources to form conclusions about author's assumptions, biases, credibility, cultural and social perspectives, or world views."New Jersey wants them to "recognize historical and cultural biases and different points of view." Most students below grades 11 and 12 are incapable of doing the kind of reading that could facilitate an inquisition of the author or a moral putdown of the author's times, certainly in grade 3, where Connecticut expects them to "develop a critical stance to texts."

As interpreted by K-12 educators, the new historicism may also encourage blanket stereotypes of authors, historical periods, and whole bodies of literature, ranging from New Jersey's "understand an author's opinions and how they address culture, ethnicity, gender, and historical periods" to Virginia's "compare and contrast the subject matter, theme…of works of classic poets with those of contemporary poets."Such standards invite students to pigeonhole dead authors sociologically and to view their works as morally defective products of an earlier time. They clearly don't imply an appreciation of older works as acts of the moral or aesthetic imagination. Indeed, they would seem to lead to the elimination of pleasure in any work portrayed as a classic.

Universalism: An Egalitarian Approach to Literary Study

In contrast to reductionist standards, which attempt to cast a literary work as little more than a front for its author's deep-seated prejudices and (usually) the most negative currents of its time, another group of standards attempts to rewrite history altogether.They suggest that all literary works in all cultures and all eras reflect universal themes. This egalitarian approach is a literary mutation of a "cultural equivalence" approach to history.Sometimes it hints at restricting literary study to texts with so-called universal themes or characters.E.g., Ohio wants students to "interpret universal themes across different works by the same author or by different authors."Virginia wants them to "discuss American literature as it reflects…universal characters.…"Apparently, it doesn't matter what author or work or body of literature students study; they are all of equal intellectual value and literary merit.

Unaware that egalitarian universalism and a reductionist approach are mutually contradictory, some states want students to believe at one and the same time that specific historical and cultural contexts lead to specific themes, characters, and perspectives even though all works across all cultures and eras feature universal themes that "connect all people." For example, Georgia claims that cultural diversity and tolerance are "universal themes characteristic of American literature across time and genre," and that classism and imperialism are "universal themes characteristic of British and Commonwealth literature across time and genre."It is not clear how a "universal theme" can be characteristic of only some cultures, but logic is not the egalitarians' strong point.

Associationism: A Post-Modern Behavioral Approach to Literary Study

Yet another group of standards reflects the doctrine long propounded by many educators that students must connect the literature they read to the "real world" and to their own lives to make literary reading meaningful, memorable, and useful.This doctrine seems to be based on the assumption that students don't want to read literature and that relating a literary work to a social or political issue or their own lives will motivate them to read it and help them understand it.Such standards as "connect literature to historical contexts, current events, and his/her own experiences," "connect the text to another text, to a situation in life, and/or to an event or issue in the world," or "make text connections to self, to other text and to the real world" are a few of the variations on this theme, which can be found at all grade levels across the states.However, the injunction is as academically unsound as it is unassessable.Given the inadequate knowledge most students have of history and current events, such connections are likely to be forced, fantasied, flawed, or totally fallacious.

"Making connections" often blends into an expectation to use literature to understand history, even though use of any artistic creation to understand historical issues or events is fraught with peril.Artists have always used their imagination in expressing themselves, a phenomenon long known as poetic license.Nevertheless, Connecticut wants students to "use literature to examine the social and political issues…." Washington wants students to "use literary themes within and across texts to interpret current issues, events, and/or how they relate to self."Delaware wants students to "apply knowledge gained from literature … as a resource for understanding social and political issues."No caveats about the limitations in using literary works to understand historical issues or contemporary events ever accompany such standards.

Straining for relevance, standards frequently emphasize the connection to the students' own lives, as in North Dakota's "apply universal themes to real life situations" or Idaho's "relate social, cultural, and historical aspects of literature to the reader's personal experience."Delaware is quite insistent about the personal connection through the grades, expecting students from grade 8 to 12 to "relate themes of literary text and media to personal experiences" and to "relate the text's content to real-life situations." In a few documents, associationism lapses into bibliotherapy—using literature to guide one's life.It is unclear how harmful this approach has been in practice.If students read Romeo and Juliet, how might they address Michigan's standard to "use themes and central ideas in literature and other texts to generate solutions to problems and formulate perspectives on issues in their own lives"?

That the practical effect of associationism is to narrow, not broaden, the literary experience is clear in many of Washington's standards.It expects students to read (or perhaps be restricted to reading) only "culturally relevant" texts, as in "connect current issues, previous information, and experiences to characters, events, and information within and across culturally relevant texts."Washington's glossary defines the phrase as "reading materials to which the student can identify or relate" (sic).

Sometimes students are expected to make specific connections between the literary works they read and the other subjects they study, as in Virginia's "understand the connections between literature and other disciplines" and "New Jersey's "understand perspectives of authors in a variety of interdisciplinary works." Both are uninterpretable. What the hapless English teacher is to do with these standards I can't imagine.Educators have imposed the doctrine of"making connections" to the "real world" on the pedagogy for mathematics, science, and history as well, without research evidence in any subject area showing an increase in student achievement.

Reader Response:A Constructivist Approach to Literary Study

At the other end of the spectrum of theories on how to teach literature is a "reader response" approach.In this approach, which has influenced literary study in the schools for decades, teachers ask students to interpret literary works through the lens of their personal experiences, and to use personal criteria for evaluating them.Standards reflecting this approach pay minimal attention to what is in the texts themselves.Like "associationism," this approach encourages reading contemporary realistic fiction, but instead of an emphasis on connecting the text to a real-world event or issue, it privileges an emotional response, something boys tend not to enjoy, especially in K-8.Coming in 47 varieties, the particular approach teachers use depends on which literary theorist they regard as authoritative.[3]Such standards as Montana's "respond to literary works on the basis of personal insights and respect the different responses of others," or Michigan's "connect personal knowledge, experience, and understanding of the world to themes and perspectives…" reflect the heavy hand of this approach.Constructivist-tinged standards are not susceptible of objective evaluation.

A bizarre hybrid emerges when a reductionist approach is applied to a constructivist approach.The standards that are created turn the privileging of subjective experience on its head. For example, Oklahoma wants students to "investigate influences on a reader's response to a text (e.g., personal experience and values; perspective shaped by age, gender, class, or nationality)."Students must detect and factor into an interpretation of a literary work not only the author's prejudices but also their own, it seems. It is not clear what kind of literary understanding or pleasure survives this tortured mutation.And such standards may especially inhibit boys.

From his perspective as an English professor and director of the English Teaching Major at the University of New Hampshire, Thomas Carnicelli is one of the few English professors willing to describe the problems with a reader response approach.One wishes that Gerald Graff had been as forthcoming in his recent attempt to account for the unmotivated, uncomprehending students overwhelming college English classrooms.In his judgment, they haven't been taught how to "argue" about a literary text assigned in an English class. One pedagogical solution he offers is to ask students to read several pieces of literary criticism about a primary text and then argue about the text with these literary critics.

But how could students come to college English classes prepared to argue about any one interpretation of a text when they have been taught for 12 years by teachers dutifully following a diktat, as in Delaware, that says they are to "understand that a single text will elicit a wide variety of responses, each of which is valid from a personal, subjective perspective." Nor can college students easily engage in an argument with a critic about a literary work they are studying when they haven't learned that they must first read and try to understand what the author wrote.According to Irma DeFord, an English teacher who spent 28 years teaching junior high school students in New York City, a reader response approach teaches students little else except how to identify with the characters and plot so they recognize themselves, their problems, and their own life experiences in texts. "Students never get to where the essential meaning of the text resides."

Concluding RemarksMany educators, librarians, parents, and other observers believe that the school curriculum does not provide boys with the kind of stories and other materials they would enjoy reading.There are a few small-scale studies to support their beliefs.But in the absence of longitudinal empirical studies on the growing gender gap, we do not know to what extent boys' increasingly poorer reading skills (relative to girls) as they go through the grades are a reflection of less appealing and/or less demanding reading fare, a relatively slower development of reading skill, a broader cultural phenomenon such as the time now spent on computer games, or varying mixtures of all these factors.Nevertheless, the growing gender gap cannot be traced solely to neurobiological and developmental differences or cultural influences. Girls' reading skills are declining too, albeit at a much slower rate.And both men and women read less literature than a decade ago.

State standards documents shed light on why the school curriculum, the most powerful influence on the development of reading interests and advanced reading skills, may be faulted. They reveal an intellectual vacuum at the heart of the English curriculum.Instead of a clearly articulated outline of literary and non-literary readings from grade to grade to designate the substantive content of the English curriculum, we find in its place the pedagogy that teachers are to use for literary study, surrounded by a dazzling variety of skill sets for speaking, listening, and the writing process.This pedagogy directs student attention to an author's life and world, or to past or current events or issues, or to the students' personal lives and feelings, that is, to everything but the imaginary world created by an author of a literary text and to an understanding of how the author created that world.It is therefore not surprising that most state standards for literary study are not only unassessable (if interpretable) but also unteachable, that is, they cannot be taught by normal teachers to normal secondary students, no matter how long the school day or year.

Consider, for example, these pretentious standards:

·draw on a broad base of knowledge about the themes, ideas, and insights found in classical literature while reading, interpreting, and reflecting on contemporary texts (Wisconsin)

·discuss, analyze, and evaluate how characters deal with the diversity of human experience and conflict (Connecticut)

·demonstrate an understanding of the relationship among perception, thought, and language (Maine)

·explain the implication of the text for the reader and/or society (Maryland)

·analyze how cultures interact with one another in literature and other texts, and describe the consequences of the interaction as it relates to our common heritage (Michigan)

·read text as art, as representation of culture, and/or history (Hawai'i)

·analyze and evaluate the reasoning and ideas underlying author's beliefs and assumptions within multiple texts (Washington)

·explain the significance of literature and its contributions to various cultures (Kansas)

·analyze and evaluate the great literary works from a variety of cultures to determine their contribution to the understanding of self, others, and the world (Washington)

In asking K-12 students to see literary works as a reflection of their life experiences, as pseudo-literary propaganda, as a comment on the world around them, or as whatever they choose to read into them, the pedagogical approaches now dominating the English classroom might reasonably be charged with contributing to the general decline in reading skills and reading interests, as well as the increasing gender gap in reading achievement. Not one of the approaches to literary study that can be discerned in current state standards is likely to encourage students, male or female, to enjoy literary reading as an activity sufficient unto itself and to read on their own.[4] The challenge we face is to restore pleasure to the reading of a literary work in K-12 and to construct an outline of a coherent K-12 literature curriculum that would appeal to both boys and girls as well as help them learn how to read both literary and non-literary texts.

References:

American Council on Education.(2006).Gender Equity in Higher Education: 2006.Item #311304.<http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pubInfo.cfm?pubID=373>

Mark Bauerlein and Sandra Stotsky. (2005).Why Johnny Won't Read. Op-ed, Washington Post, Tuesday, January 25, 2005.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33956-2005Jan24.html.

Thomas Carnicelli. (2000). The English Language Arts in American Schools: Problems and Proposals.Pp. 211-236. In S. Stotsky (Ed.), What's at Stake in the K-12 Standards Wars: A Primer for Educational Policy Makers.NY: Peter Lang.

Jay P. Greene & Marcus Winters. (2006, April).Leaving Boys Behind: Public High School
Graduation Rates.Civic Report. No. 48

M. Jean Greenlaw & O. Paul Wielan.(1979).Reading Interests Revisited. Language Arts, 56, pp. 432-434.

Irma Deford. (2004). Why Students Resist Reading.American School Board Journal, 191, December, pp. 18-19.

Irma Deford.(2005).The Right Book for the Right Student: Relevance in the Study of Literature.Unpublished manuscript.

Sara Mead. (2006, June). The Truth about Boys and Girls. Education Sector. Retrieved October 16, 2006, from www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/ESO_BoysAndGirls.pdf.

David Moynihan.(2006).His website provides a self-generated list of "Authors of Books Boys Like to Read and Are Not Usually Taught." http://www.boysbooks.org.

National Assessment of Educational Progress.(2004).Proposed Study on Gender Differences.Approved by the National Assessment Governing Board in August 2004 as part of the Reading Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress.

George Norvell.(1950).The Reading Interests of Young People.Boston: D.C. Heath.

Rennie Center for Education Research and Policy.(2006, October).Most Likely to Succeed: An Analysis of Gender Achievement Gaps in Massachusetts.Policy Brief.Boston: Author

Laura Sokol.(2002).Help Wanted: Boys' Reading.Interaction (quarterly magazine of the Canadian Child Care Federation), Winter, 14 (4), pp.12-13.

http://www.ldac-taac.ca/Research/boys_reading-e.asp

Sandra Stotsky. (1999).The Uses of Literature in Education for Democratic Citizenship.In C. F. Bahmueller & J.J. Patrick (Eds.), Principles and Practices of Education for Democratic Citizenship: International Perspectives and Projects.(pp. 209-230). ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education and the ERIC Adjunct Clearinghouse for International Civic Education in Association with Civitas: An International Civic Education Exchange Program, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.

Sandra Stotsky. (1999).Losing Our Language.NY: Free Press.Reprinted as a paperback by Encounter Books in 2002.See pp.61-93 for findings on the ways in which gender is addressed in leading elementary instructional reading textbooks in the mid-1990s.

Sandra Stotsky. (2005).Review of Gerald Graff's Clueless in Academe: How Schooling Obscures the Life of the Mind.American Journal of Education.November, 112 (1), pp.149-152.Comment on Sandra Stotsky's book review by Gerald Graff, pp.152-156.Response to Gerald Graff, pp.157-161.

Stotsky, Sandra.(2005).State of State English Standards, 2004.Washington, DC : Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Sandra Stotsky. (2006). Whose Literacy Is Declining? New Frontiers for Classroom Research.Op-ed, Valley Patriot, February, Vol. 3, No. 2. http://www.tommyduggan.com/VP020806stotsky.html.

Sandra Stotsky.(2006).Anti-Civic Uses of Literary Discourse.Analisis del Discurso: Lengua, Cultura, Valores.Volume I.Pp. 65-92.Actas del I Congreso Internacional.(University of Navarra, Pamplona, in November 2002).M. Casado Velarde, R. Gonzalez Ruiz, & V. Romero Gualda (Eds.).Madrid: Arcos/Libros.

Michael Sullivan.(2004). Why Johnny Won't Read.School Library Journal. August 1. (http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA439816.html)

Steven J. Tepper. (2000). Fiction Reading in America: Explaining the Gender Gap. Poetics 27, pp. 255-275.

Jo Worthy, Megan Moorman, & Margo Turner.(1999).What Johnny Likes to Read Is Hard to Find in School.Reading Research Quarterly, 34 (1), pp. 12-26.

Appendix A.From a Plimoth Plantation Education Newsletter, Fall 2006

Can you believe it's already October?After an eventful summer here at Plimoth Plantation, we are gearing up for another busy autumn.

Looking to bring your lessons to life this fall?

Have a costumed colonist or a Wampanoag teacher visit your classroom!

Our Wampanoag program entitled People of the East is a one-hour, in-depth exploration of daily life of the Wampanoag people in the 17th century. Our Native museum teachers show colorful slides, pass around reproduction artifacts and facilitate classroom activities to bring to life the seasonal ways of the Wampanoag people. All our Native teachers speak about the past as well as present-day Native life.

In addition, you can invite a Pilgrim to visit your classroom. Our museum teacher will portray an actual resident of 1627 Plymouth Colony. Your colonial visitor will be wearing an accurate reproduction costume and will use their own character's unique story to frame their one-hour program. As a highlight of the program, two children will be invited to try on colonial style children's clothing.

Searching for professional development opportunities?

Plimoth Plantation is pleased to present two workshops this October!Plimoth Plantation's Education Department is offering another session of the popular workshop "Teaching Thanksgiving."The program will be held on October 14, 2006, and runs from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Plimoth Plantation invites you to take part in a lively, full day workshop exploring the events of 1621. Participants will explore the myth and reality of Plymouth's "First Thanksgiving", discuss Wampanoag and English traditions of giving thanks and discover how Thanksgiving has evolved into today's holiday.The workshop features visits to the museum's living history sites and its Thanksgiving: Memory, Myth and Meaning exhibit, hands-on activities, presentations by museum staff, working groups using primary sources and, best of all, a meal of period Wampanoag and English foods!

Plimoth Plantation is a certified Massachusetts Professional Development Provider and our programs are aligned with Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks. Participants will be awarded 10 Professional Development Points. Join us and you just may never look at Thanksgiving the same way again!

…………………………………………………..

As Senior Associate Commissioner at the Massachusetts Department of Education from 1999-2003, Sandra Stotsky directed complete revisions of the state's licensing regulations, licensure tests for K-12 educators, and PreK-12 standards for mathematics, history, civics, geography, economics, English, reading, science, preschool, and instructional technology.She was a Visiting Scholar at Northeastern University from 2004-2006 and is now an independent researcher and consultant in education.Dr. Stotsky was Research Associate at the Harvard Graduate School of Education from 1984-2001 and Senior Research Associate at Boston University School of Education from 1996-1998.From 1987-2006, she has directed civic education professional development summer institutes at Harvard University and Northeastern University, and she has consulted for the U.S. Information Service on civic education for several emerging Eastern European democracies. She is the editor of What's at Stake in the K-12 Standards Wars: A Primer for Educational Policy Makers (Peter Lang, 2000) and author of Losing Our Language (Free Press, 1999, reprinted by Encounter Books, 2002).From 1991-1997, she served as editor of Research in the Teaching of English, the research journal sponsored by the National Council of Teachers of English.She regularly reviews state English language arts and reading standards.Dr. Stotsky received her B.A. in French Literature with distinction from the University of Michigan, and an Ed.D. in Reading Research and Education with distinction from Harvard University.