Duluth, MN (OpEdNews) March 29, 2010 The sad facts in Richard Whitmire's new book WHY BOYS FAIL are not exactly surprising, but they are nevertheless disturbing.
If you think of the famous bell-shaped curve of distribution, American boys at the high end of the distribution curve are doing well enough in elementary and secondary education. Whitmire is not especially concerned about them, and neither am I.
But in terms of educational achievement, the real problems are the American boys lower in the distribution curve. Of course Whitmire is not the first author to write about the relative under-performance of these boys in terms of educational achievement. But Whitmire details and documents their under-performance quite well.
As is well known, federal legislators have passed legislation for American schools that is known as No Child Left Behind. This legislation was initiated under President George W. Bash and passed with the support of Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. Unfortunately, the Obama administration and Congress are dedicated to overhauling No Child Left Behind. But No Child Left Behind is deeply flawed legislation. It should not be overhauled, but abolished and replaced with far more intelligent legislation along lines that I outline in the present essay.
All American boys today need to work out a specifically masculine sense of identity, just as boys and men everywhere in the world have had to. However, American boys today are required by law to attend American schools, instead of having male puberty rites supervised by adult men in the group to assist them in growing up. Male puberty rites rank with proverbs and storytelling as widespread features in oral cultures. The very survival of groups in oral cultures depended on socially constructive orientations of males and of manliness. As Harvey C. Mansfield of Harvard has famously observed in his book MANLINESS modernity leaves manliness unemployed in terms of socially constructive orientations of manliness.
Unfortunately, this leaves open the possibility of the employment of manliness in ways that are not socially constructive, but are socially and personally dysfunctional.