This study examined reading achievement gaps between eleventh grade girls and boys in a Midwestern state by analyzing four years of ACT reading scores disaggregated by subscores and demographic features: educational placement, income, race/ethnicity. Across all years and all groups, girls outperformed boys on the literature/arts reading subtest; however, boys tended to outscore girls on the social/studies science reading subtest. Founded in 1959, The American College Testing Program (ACT) assists colleges in selecting post-secondary matches. Over the last ten years, ACT has become the compliance component for No Child Left Behind (NCLB) among numerous Midwestern and Western states.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ACT, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading.Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.
2.
ACT, Inc. (2007). ACT technical manual.Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.
3.
ACT, Inc. (2010). The ACT's supervisor's manual.Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.
AudS., HussarW., PlantyM., SnyderT., BiancoK., FoxM., & DrakeL. (2010). The condition of education 2010 (NCES 2010-028). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
9.
BoykinW. A., & NogueraP. (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn: Moving from research to practice to close the achievement gap.Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
10.
Brown v. the Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954).
11.
BrozoW. (2010). To be a boy, to be a reader.Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
12.
ClevelandK. P. (2011). Teaching boys who struggle in school: Strategies that turn underachievers into successful learners.Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
13.
CreswellJ. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
14.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act; Implementation; Single-Sex Classes and Schools; Guidelines, 72 Fed. Reg. 32083 (2007).
15.
FergusonR. F. (2005, October). Toward skilled parenting & transformed schools inside a national movement for excellence with equity.Symposium of the Campaign for Educational Equity, October 24 and 25, 2005, Teachers College, Columbia University.
16.
FisherD., & FreyN. (2004). Improving adolescent literacy: Strategies at work.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
17.
Food and Nutrition Service Child Nutrition Programs—Income Eligibility Guidelines, 73 Fed. Reg. 19186 (2008).
18.
GallagherK. (2009). Readicide: How schools are killing reading and what you can do about it.Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
19.
GambrellL. B., BlockC. C., & PressleyM. (2002). Improving comprehension instruction: An urgent priority. In BlockC.C., GambrellL. B., & PressleyM. (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 3–16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
20.
GeeJ. P. (2008). “A sociocultural perspective on opportunity to learn.” In MossP. A., PullinD. C., GeeJ. P., HaertelE. H., & YoungL. J. (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 76–108). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21.
GriffithsM. (2006). The feminization of teaching and the practice of teaching: Threat or opportunity?Educational Theory,, 56(4), 387–405.
22.
GrumetM. R. (1988). Bitter milk.Amherst, MA: The University of Massachusetts Press.
23.
GurianM., & StevensK. (2005). The minds of boys.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
24.
HeckmanJ. J., & LaFontaineP. A. (2010). The American high school graduation rate: Trends and levels.The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 244–262.
25.
HellerR. (2010, August. 25). The confusion at the core of the core standards: Why the 'English language arts'?Education Week, 30(1), 26 & 28.
26.
HollandV. (1998). Underachieving boys: Problems and solutions.Support for Learning., 13(4), 174–178.
27.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education & Training. (2002, October). Boys: Getting it right. Report on the inquiry into the education of boys.Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS). ISBN 0 642 78421 3.
28.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1400 (2005).
KaferK. (2007, April). Taking the boy crisis in education seriously: How school choice can boost achievement among boys and girls (Position paper No. 604). Washington, DC: Independent Women's Forum.
31.
KleinfeldJ. (2006). Five powerful strategies for connecting boys to schools. Paper for White House Conference on Helping America's Youth, Indianapolis, Indiana. Retrieved from http://www.single-sexschools.org/Kleinfeld.htm.
32.
KleinfeldJ. (2009). The state of American boyhood.Gender Issues, 26, 113–120. DOI 10.1007/s12147-009-9074-z.
33.
LaveJ., & WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34.
MartinoW., & MeyennB. (2002). 'War, guns and cool, tough things': Interrogating single-sex classes as a strategy for engaging boys in English.Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(3), 303–324.
MeeceJ. L., Bower GlienkeB., & BurgS. (2006). Gender and motivation.Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 351–373.
37.
MehanH. (2008). A sociological perspective on opportunity to learn and assessment. In MossP. A., PullinD. C., GeeJ. P., HaertelE. H., & YoungL. J. (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 42–75). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38.
MertensD. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
39.
MojeE. B., CiechanowskiK. M., KramerK., EllisL., CarrilloR., & CollazoT. (2004). Working toward the third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge.Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70.
40.
MossG. (2007). Literacy and gender.New York, NY: Routledge.
41.
MossP. A. (2008). Sociocultural implications for assessment I. In MossP. A., PullinD. C., GeeJ. P., HartelE. H., & YoungL. J. (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 222–258). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
42.
MurnaneR. J., WillettR. J., DuhaldebordeY., & TylerJ. H. (2000). How important are the cognitive skills of teenagers in predicting subsequent earnings?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,, 19(4), 547–568.
43.
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) data explorer. Available at www.nces.ed.gov/.
44.
NairM., DeshlerD. D., BiancarosaG., & PalincsarA. S. (2007). The content of adolescent literacy instruction. In DeshlerD. D., PalinscarA. S., BiancarosaG., & NairM. (Eds.), Informed choices for struggling adolescent readers: A research-based guide to instructional programs and practices (pp. 49–60). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
45.
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data explorer. Available at www.nces.ed.gov/.
46.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/.
47.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Appendix A: Research Supporting Key Elements of the Standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/.
48.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Appendix B: Text Exemplars and Sample Performance Tasks. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/.
49.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. §6301 et seq. (2002).
ParkerL. H., & RennieL. J. (2002). Teachers' implementation of gender-inclusive instructional strategies in single-sex and mixed-sex science classrooms.International Journal of Science Education, 24(9), 881–897.
52.
PomerantzE. M., AltermattE. R., & SaxonJ. L. (2002). Making the grade but feeling distressed: Gender differences in academic performance and internal distress.Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 396–404.
53.
PullinD. C., & HaertelE. H. (2008). Assessment through the lens of opportunity to learn. In MossP. A., PullinD. C., GeeJ. P., HaertelE. H., & YoungL. J. (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 17–41). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
54.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading comprehension.Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education.
55.
SadkerD., & ZittlemanK. (2005). Closing the gender gap, again!Principal,84(4), 18–22.
56.
SalkindN. J. (2011). Statistics for people who think they hate statistics.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
57.
SmithM. W., & WilhelmJ. D. (2002). Reading Don't Fix No Chevys.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
58.
SnyderT. D., DillowS. A., & HoffmanC. M. (2009). Digest of Education Statistics 2008 (NCES 2009-020). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Washington, DC.
59.
StillwellR. (2010). Public school graduates and dropouts from the common core of data: School year 2007-08 (NCES 2010-341). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010341.pdf.
