Successful Boys and Literacy: Are “Literate Boys” Challenging or Repackaging Hegemonic Masculinity?

Abstract

The National Assessment of Educational Progress statistics show that boys are underachieving in literacy compared to girls. Attempts to redress the problem in various Global North countries and particularly Australia and the United Kingdom have failed to make any impact. However, there are boys who are doing well in literacy. The aim of this article is to explore how high‐status constructions of masculinity are maintained alongside “successfully literate” identities. Using existing studies of successfully literate boys and data collected from an investigation into high achievers and popularity, the article will show how a “real boy” construction of masculinity is being reworked by some groups of academically successful boys to produce “Renaissance Masculinity.” The argument here is that tackling the gender gap in literacy requires attention to social success and aesthetic factors as much as to the structural variables of gender, social class and “race.”

Notes

Notes

1 We acknowledge that definitions of the term “literacy” vary in accordance with purpose and intent. The term is used here to refer to the reading, writing, speaking and listening.

2 South Asian, Chinese, mixed‐race, North African, South American, Turkish and three African Caribbean.

3 We are fully cognisant of the difficulties of attempting to locate social class through parental occupation. The occupations of both parents were taken into account and where there was a difference in categorisation of the occupation of parents/guardians, the pupil was allocated to the highest of the class categories.

4 In keeping with the current emphasis in UK educational policy on credentialism, we define “high achievement” in pupils as those who achieved highly across a range of subjects, with evidence to support identification provided via details of pupils’ Key Stage 2 SATs results and their recent grades across subject areas. In a number of cases pupils in our sample had been identified as Gifted and Talented at particular subject areas expressed by educational credentials (even though the research team did not subscribe to the view that achievement should be conceived so narrowly).

5 “Popularity” is clearly a complex and slippery concept, both in its actual meaning (those most popular are not necessarily those most liked, as the concept incorporates aspects such as influence and admiration); and in perspective (those most popular with some groups may not be popular with others). We were interested in pupil popularity among peers, rather than with teachers, as it is gendered peer‐group power and status relations which are argued in the literature to impact on gender and achievement (Jackson, 2006; Myhill, 2002). Hence all pupils in identified top‐stream classes were asked to complete a short survey on popularity in their class and which asked three questions: Which student do you most like in your class? Which student would other people say is most popular? Which student would you most like to be like?

6 Gendered learning styles are frequently referred to as an explanation for gender differences in achievement (Gurian, 2002; Sax, 2006). However, research into learning styles demonstrates that there is no evidence of gendered styles of learning (Coffield et al., 2004).