Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men Michel J. Welmond Laura Gregory Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men Michel J. Welmond Laura Gregory © 2021 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover photo: © GNT STUDIO / Shutterstock.com (ID: 684374695). Photoshop effects added by Cheryl Flood. Used with permission; further permission required for re-use. Cover design: Cheryl Flood Designs Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | iii Contents Acknowledgements v Abbreviations and Acronyms vi Executive Summary vii 1. Introduction 1 Why Does It Matter? 2 The Objective of This Report 4 2. Taking Stock of Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men 5 Underachievement in Participation in and Completion of Education 5 Underachievement in Learning Outcomes 9 Distribution of Underachievement Within Countries 17 3. What Explains Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men? 20 Labor Market Patterns 20 Social Norms 22 Learning, Teaching, and Characteristics of Education Systems 26 4. What Has Been Done About Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men? 31 Interventions Related to Education and the Labor Market 31 Addressing Social Norms 32 Encouraging Boys’ Positive Engagement in Learning 33 5. The Way Forward 39 References 41 Appendix A: Additional Tables and Figures 46 Boxes Box 2.1 Gender gaps in Sri Lanka 18 Box 3.1 The Caribbean and the Man Box: The power of social norms in shaping educational achievement 23 Box 3.2 The effect of classroom climate and practices on boys' learning 29 Box 4.1 Theories and principles for learning 34 Box 4.3 Improving school and classroom climates 36 Box 4.4 Initiatives to encourage boys' reading 37 Figures Figure 1.1 Gender gap reversal in educational attainment by region 1 Figure 2.1 Gender gaps (boys - girls) in primary gross enrollment ratio 5 Figure 2.2 Gender gap (boys - girls) in secondary gross enrollment ratio 6 iv | Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men Figure 2.3 Gender gap (boys - girls) in secondary school completion rate 7 Figure 2.4 Gender gap (boys - girls) in tertiary education gross enrollment ratios 8 Figure 2.5 Rates of tertiary education attainment across the population: graduation and enrollment by gender, c. 2019 9 Figure 2.6 Learning poverty rate by country and gender, c. 2015 10 Figure 2.7 Average learning poverty rates by gender, region, and income group, c. 2015 11 Figure 2.8 Average achievement (scale score) in TIMSS 2019, PIRLS 2016, and PISA 2018, by gender 13 Figure 2.9 Selected countries in which boys' achievement is dropping or the gap between girls and boys is increasing, PIRLS and TIMSS 15 Figure 2.10 Selected countries in which boys' achievement has increased faster than girls' (reducing the gap), PIRLS and TIMSS 15 Figure 2.11 Science: Relative achievement of 2015 grade 4 students as grade 8 students in 2019 16 Tables Table 1.1 Change in HCI if boys' underachievement is eradicated 3 Appendix Figures Appendix figure 1. Percentage of students below the lower international benchmark and at or above the high international benchmark (boys - girls), PIRLS 2016 and TIMSS 2019 49 Appendix figure 2. Academic emphasis of school, all-boys' and all-girls' schools, grade 8, TIMSS 2019 Principals’ views 54 Appendix figure 3. Clarity of instruction in science lessons, all-boys' and all-girls' schools, grade 8, TIMSS 2019 54 Appendix figure 4. Frequency of student bullying, all-boys' and all-girls' schools, grade 8, TIMSS 2019 Bullying scale: higher = less bullying (students’ view) 55 Appendix figure 5. Students' sense of belonging in school, all-boys' and all-girls' schools, grade 8, TIMSS 2019 55 Appendix Tables Appendix table 1. Mean performance (scale score) in the Latin American Laboratory for Assessment of the Quality of Education (LLECE): Regional Comparative and Explanatory Study, by gender, 2013 46 Appendix table 2. Mean performance (scale score) in the Southern and Eastern African Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ), by gender, grade 6, 2007 46 Appendix table 3. Mean performance (scale score) in the Programme for the Analysis of Education Systems (PASEC), by gender, 2014 47 Appendix table 4. Percentage of grade 2 and 3 students who reached minimum proficiency in reading, by gender, Early Grade Reading Assessments (EGRA), 2010—2014 48 Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | v Acknowledgements This report was prepared under the overall guidance of Caren Grown (Global Director of the World Bank’s Gender Group) and Jaime Saavedra (Global Director of the World Bank’s Education Global Practice). The authors, Michel Welmond and Laura Gregory, would like to thank Kathleen Beegle for her overall support, and the following for their contributions: Sergio Diaz, Aidan Clerkin, and Ivan Torre. The report draws on insights from discussions with Rythia Afkar, Harsha Aturupane, Raja Bentaouet Kattan, Almedina Music, Shaun Powers, and Andrew Ragatz from the World Bank; Maria Caridad and Laurence Telson from the Inter-American Development Bank; Penelope Bender, independent consultant; Lauren Rumble, Vincenzo Placco, and Margarete Sachs-Israel from UNICEF; and Gary Barker and Giovanna Lauro from Promundo. The team benefited from comments provided by Dina N. Abu-Ghaida, Laurent Loic Yves Bossavie, Tazeen Fasih, Harriet Nannyonjo, Rafael E. De Hoyos Navarro, Jyotsna Jha, Tobias Linden, Shobhana Sosale, and Ivan Torre, along with other members of the World Bank’s Education Global Practice who participated in discussions and data gathering for this report. The authors are grateful to William Brozo for his review of a draft version of this report. vi | Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men Abbreviations and Acronyms ALIGNS aligning levels of instruction with goals and the needs of students CAST Center for Applied Technology EAP East Asia and Pacific ECA Europe and Central Asia EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment GCC Gulf Cooperation Council GDP gross domestic product GPI gender parity index HCI human capital index IEA International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement LLECE Latin American Laboratory for Assessment of the Quality of Education MENA Middle East and North Africa MPL minimum proficiency level OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PASEC Programme for the Analysis of Education Systems PIAAC Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies PIRLS Progress in International Reading Literacy Study PISA Programme for International Student Assessment RISE Research on Improving Systems in Education SACMEQ Southern and Eastern African Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality SDG Sustainable Development Goal STEM science, technology, engineering, and mathematics TALIS Teaching and Learning International Survey TaRL teaching at the right level TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study UDL Universal Design for Learning UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UK United Kingdom US United States Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | vii Executive Summary This report takes stock of educational underachievement among boys and men, examines the evidence on contributing factors, and explores what has been done to address the phenomenon. While female underrepresentation in secondary and tertiary education remain a significant issue in some, particularly low-income, countries, more than 100 countries have lower levels of male secondary and tertiary education enrollment and completion. Learning poverty rates—the proportion of children unable to read and understand a simple text at 10 years of age—are higher for boys than for girls in all regions and almost all countries of the world. Across various grades and subjects, in many countries boys tend to have poorer learning outcomes than girls, with substantial differences in some countries, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, as regularly demonstrated in international assessments of student learning. For high-income countries, this is not a new development—it has been readily acknowledged and discussed in the literature since the 1990s. What has become increasingly common is the observance of this gap in middle-income countries as well. Throughout this report, educational underachievement is referred to in three ways. First, underachievement in terms of low levels of participation in education, including enrollment and retention; second, underachievement in terms of low levels of completion or graduation; and third, underachievement in terms of low student learning outcomes, also referred to as “underperformance”, and assessed in terms of international or regional large-scale student assessments. In terms of education participation and completion, underachievement of males is particularly noticeable at the tertiary education level. Almost 75 percent of middle-income countries and 95 percent of higher-income countries have fewer men than women enrolled at the tertiary education level, and the proportion of male graduates is substantially lower than that of female graduates. At the secondary education level, as countries become wealthier, boys’ underachievement compared to girls’ in terms of education participation and completion tends to worsen. However, the gap between boys and girls narrows again for countries at higher levels of income, probably due to overall high levels of secondary education enrollment. There are important differences in achievement between boys and girls when it comes to reading, a foundational skill on which success in other subjects and further grades is based, and a central aspect of the learning poverty rate. Boys at the primary and secondary education levels tend to score lower on international and national assessments of reading than girls, with boys’ underachievement in reading often starting very early in their school life. In some countries, boys’ underperformance spans several key subject areas, including science and mathematics. Other types of skills are also less well developed among boys, including collaborative problem solving, teamwork, and the capacity to understand the perspectives of others (OECD 2017b; OECD 2020). This phenomenon is affecting some countries much more than others, and middle-income countries especially. Sometimes the differences are modest, clustered in certain areas or groups, and in some instances the gap narrows over time; however, the universality of this finding is noteworthy and of concern. In many countries, the overall gender gap has been the result of a clutch of poorly-performing male students who bring down the average, particularly in lower-middle-income countries. This characteristic is reinforced by the observation that poor academic performance for boys and girls is closely related to the factor of disadvantage—whether defined by income or other markers such as race, ethnicity, or disability. However, as is discussed in this report, boys tend to underperform girls viii | Executive Summary who experience similar disadvantages. Systemic and institutional racism and discrimination is closely related to underachievement generally, and male underachievement specifically. This report discusses the causes of educational underachievement among boys and men through three lenses: the labor market, social norms, and characteristics of the education process (learning and teaching). From the labor market perspective, the incentives for continuing schooling for men are sometimes different than for women because of historical patterns of work opportunities: men may have (or have had) the possibility of finding work without education. However, although recent changes in the returns related to education should lead boys and men to continue their studies, puzzlingly, this is often not the case. There may be other factors influencing this phenomenon rather than choice. When students fall behind, whether they are boys or girls, it is difficult to catch up. So it is not necessarily that boys and men underestimate the economic and social benefits of education; it may be that their potential to gain access narrows considerably because of previous failures. This is a strong argument for addressing potential barriers to achievement early in a child’s life. Prevalent social norms that dismiss the importance of schooling for boys and men provide some of the answers to why boys and men are underachieving. However, families and peers may be communicating a panoply of norms; thus it is difficult to determine how to reinforce some norms over others. Education systems that emphasize the specific needs of all students and create a school climate that promotes inclusion and addresses gender stereotypes will benefit both boys and girls. However, this does not mean that specific actions for boys should not be developed: attention should be paid to the sophisticated interaction of gender and education in the underachievement of boys and men because it can provide clues to addressing the problems. Every aspect of male educational underachievement is accentuated by poverty. “Money matters” when it comes to male educational underachievement (Autor and Wasserman 2013). In poorer American households, boys have lower rates of kindergarten readiness, test scores, and graduation, and higher levels of truancy, disciplinary problems, disability, and juvenile delinquency (Autor et al. 2016). Socioeconomic factors have always been very salient in terms of educational achievement, with the differences between poor and rich often outweighing the differences between males and females. However, an interesting finding of much analysis on this subject indicates that boys and men tend to be more sensitive to poverty and other types of disadvantages than girls are. Very few countries have put in place systemwide policies or programs to address issues of educational underachievement among boys and men. In terms of education and labor markets, some interventions have included gender-based quotas for entry to university, raising young men’s awareness of work opportunities after graduation, and the promotion among boys and young men of technical education leading directly to the labor market. These types of interventions have had mixed results. Relating to social norms, attempts have been made to create a counter-offensive by supporting a social network of key actors in the lives of boys and men that promotes norms of educational success, for example through peer groups, clubs, or effective parenting programs. Other approaches have focused on the teacher, being important role models in students’ lives and therefore strong vectors for the transmission of norms. Interventions that focus on the quality of education appear to be crucial for underachieving boys, while also benefiting girls. There are two important lessons learned from interventions to address underachievement. First, they require a multidimensional approach that brings together the family, the community, and the school. The solution cannot be found only in one space. Second, any approach that focuses on boys as a unitary and uniform group, and singular solutions, misses out on more sophisticated and effective Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | ix interventions. Male role models, adapting educational experiences to boys’ interests, and vocational education may all offer promise, but for any of them to work, they require attention to the complex interactions of labor markets, social norms, and the specific characteristics of learning, teaching, and education systems. Most importantly, the quality of education, particularly the ability of teachers to motivate students, find connections to students’ lives, and focus on individual talents and needs, is crucial for underachieving boys, while also benefiting underachieving girls. The role of the school community in fostering a high-achieving, safe environment that is conducive to learning and thriving should be a fundamental goal of every school for every student, regardless of gender. Efforts to build the capacity of school leadership to foster a culture of school self-reflection and planning is directly related to this goal. The finding that middle-income countries and wealthier countries that have relatively recently expanded access to education have some of the greatest problems of underachievement among boys and men is not particularly surprising. The importance of elevating the knowledge and skills of school leaders, teachers, and all educators to the level of quality needed cannot be underestimated. Having the systems in place to develop high-performing teachers and school leaders—that is, strong faculties of education in universities and teacher training colleges focused on professional practice in addition to academic research—and to lead school communities that also educate parents in effective practices for supporting their boys and girls is a work in progress. This report validates the need for continued and concerted efforts to improve the educational experience of learners, and highlights the fact that methods to engage and motivate those at the lower end of achievement—predominantly boys—are effective for all students. This report asserts that male educational underachievement is a phenomenon that deserves the attention of policymakers, development agencies, academics and analysts, and the public. The phenomenon is found in most countries and appears to become more extensive as lower-income countries become richer. Because this disproportionately affects socially disadvantaged boys and men, there is a substantial equity dimension to this problem. The underachievement of boys and men has a significant impact on human capital formation, as measured by the human capital index (HCI). For example, if there were no underachievement of boys—that is, if boys had the same learning- adjusted years of schooling as girls—a child’s long-term annual productivity would be 1.3 percent higher; maintained over the course of a decade, this represents an increase in total production of 13.9 percent. In MENA, this would be a figure as high as 33.9 percent. This report also provides a framework for examining underachievement among boys and men. The framework consists of three key aspects: (1) labor market patterns; (2) social norms; and (3) learning, teaching, and characteristics of education systems. These three aspects cover almost all of the myriad of factors known to have an influence on the educational outcomes of boys and men. Finally, this report proposes a research agenda that will help to accelerate a deeper understanding of the issues of male educational underachievement at the global and national levels and the potential solutions. To develop effective programs and policy actions further research is necessary, including to test different approaches and better understand the cross-disciplinary dynamics that contribute to educational underachievement among boys and men. Three paths of potential research are proposed to pursue in the future: (1) in-depth country studies; (2) thematic studies of areas that have previously been underdeveloped, such as higher education and social and economic disadvantage; and (3) applied research, such as on the impact of efforts to involve the community in school programs that aim to reduce the dropout rate. Better data collection and analysis is also called for to help target responsive instruction and educational opportunities to boys identified as being at the highest risk of x | Executive Summary educational failure and the most needful of additional supports, which need not be to the detriment of support for girls also in need of special support. The report concludes with a call for a holistic view of gender, as opposed to one in which girls’/ women’s and boys’/men’s achievement in education is seen in isolation from one another. Such an approach would be useful at the national level, providing a balanced view of the needs of all groups and identifying the approaches that work for boys/men, girls/women, and in some cases all children/ adults. Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 1 Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men 1.1. Introduction Introduction When When I was I was little, little, I didn’t I didn’t havehave the the chance chance to to study. study. Well Well I guess I guess I did I did but but I wasted I wasted it. You know, when you’re a guy it. You know, when you’re a guy in my neighborhood, you don’t want to worryworry in my neighborhood, you don’t want to about like that. like about anything anything You that. You just just wanna wanna goof goof off. My off. My mother mother would yellwould at me yell to goat me to to go to school school but I’d run but I’d off. runthere And off. And wasthere no man was no man around around the house the tohouse to run run after me.after me. Today, now that I’m older, s--t, I’m gonna study. Without Today, now that I’m older, s--t, I’m gonna study. Without an education, it’s already an education, it’s hard already enough hardto enough find work. to find work. (Anderson, (Anderson, 21, African-Brazilian, 21, African-Brazilian, resident of resident a favela ofina favela in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (Barker et al. 2012, 138).(Barker et al. 2012, 138). More than 100 countries have lower levels of male education enrollment and completion at the More than 100 secondary countries and have lower higher education levels levels of male (Bossavie and Kanninen enrollment education and completion 2018). Learning poverty ratesat the are secondary and higher for thaneducation higher boys girls in all levels regions (Bossavie and almostandallKanninen countries of2018). Learning the world. poverty various In addition, rates are measures higher for boys indicate girlsboys than that in alltend to have regions poorer and almostlearning outcomes all countries of than the girls world.in In many countries addition, at various the primary measures and indicate secondary that boys tend levels, to havewith substantial poorer differences learning outcomes many inthan countries, girls in manyparticularly countries at in the the Middle primary North East andlevels, and secondary Africa with (MENA) substantial region. For differences inhigh-income many countries, countries, this is particularly in not theaMiddle new Eastdevelopment—it and North Africa has region.acknowledged been readily (MENA) For high-income discussed this andcountries, in the a newsince literature is not the 1990s. development —it been has has What become readily increasingly acknowledged common and in recent discussed in theyears is the since literature occurrence of this the 1990s. gap has in middle- What become income countries. increasingly common in recent years is the occurrence of this gap in middle-income countries. According According to Bossavie to Bossavieand andKanninen Kanninen (2018), (2018), thenumber the number of of countries experiencing countries experiencing educational educational under-attainment under-attainment among among boys boysand and youngmen young men has grown, particularly has grown, particularly at atthe the tertiary tertiary education education level level (figure 1.1). For cohorts born in the 1920s, the tertiary enrollment education gender (figure 1.1). For cohorts born in the 1920s, the tertiary enrollment education gender parity index parity index (GPI) (female/male) was 0.40; for (GPI) (female/male) was the most 0.40; forrecent cohorts the most (those recent born cohorts in the (those 2000s), born the in the global the 2000s), ratio is 1.22. global Male underachievement in terms of enrollment in the secondary and tertiary levels ratio is 1.22. Male underachievement in terms of enrollment in the secondary and tertiary levels ofof education first occurred in the education Europe first and Central occurred Asia (ECA) in the Europe region with and Central Asiacohorts (ECA) born region inwith cohortsitborn the 1950s; continued in the in OECD and Latin 1950s; it continued in OECD and Latin American countries with cohorts born in the 1960s, and with American countries with cohorts born in the 1960s, and in MENA more recently, in cohorts MENA born in the more 1970s.with cohorts born in the 1970s. recently, 1.1 1.1 Figure Figure Gender Gender gap reversal gap educational reversal inin attainment educational by region attainment by region Source: Bossavie and Kanninen 2018 based on data from the Barro-Lee Educational Attainment Database. Source: Bossavie and Kanninen 2018 based on data from the Barro-Lee Educational Attainment Database. While this this While paper report onon focuses focuses educational educational underachievement among underachievement boysand among boys andmen, men, does it it not does imply not imply that that males males and and females females areare in in competitionfor competition foreducational opportunities, or educational opportunities, orthat thatthe the challenge challengeof of ensuring access to quality and meaningful education for girls and women no longer exists. Trends 10 2 | 1. Introduction indicate the success of many programs that have aimed to improve girls’ educational outcomes; however, girls’ access to basic education continues to be a challenge in the poorest countries, and school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic threaten to set back progress in those countries and many more. Throughout Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, many girls do not have access to secondary education, and sometimes even to primary education. In addition, in many countries, while women are enrolling in greater numbers in tertiary education, they are often enrolling in fields of study that could lead to fewer employment opportunities. Female access to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education constitutes the next frontier in gender education equality throughout the world. Finally, women are almost universally at a disadvantage when it comes to getting jobs at commensurate training or educational levels. As has been the case in studies of female educational achievement, relative gender performance provides a lens for analyzing male educational performance. Relative growth in enrollment rates provides insights into male achievement today and over time. If tertiary education enrollment rates for girls grow much faster than boys over a given period, there is an evident change in the relative achievement of boys. Combined with large gaps in learning outcomes in some countries, the issue of educational underachievement among boys warrants attention. However, there are two caveats to keep in mind when analyzing educational underachievement among boys and men. First, not all boys are underachieving. In some cases, the gender gap is modest, or the overall enrollment rates or learning levels are high for boys relative to other countries, even if they are surpassed by girls in their country. Second, variation in male and female achievement is often strongly aligned with income and social inequality. In such cases, it could be claimed that low levels of male and female educational achievement are driven more by other considerations than those specific to gender. That said, as will be discussed in this report, male educational underachievement is often particularly prevalent at lower ends of the socioeconomic spectrum, pointing to the need to identify those boys most at risk. Why Does It Matter? The human capital of a population has a direct impact on its productivity and welfare (World Bank 2018a). Education, specifically, is considered an increasingly important determinant of lifetime income. In the United States and most other OECD countries, the data shows that earnings and employment prospects for less-educated workers have sharply declined over the last three decades. Educational underachievement among boys and men constitutes a brake on human capital development, and can be addressed without reversing the gains made by girls and women. Even in cases where girls’ and women’s progress is the principal reason that achievement gaps are growing, addressing male underachievement has an overall positive effect. This is particularly important considering, as is discussed in this report, that there is a strong relationship between educational underachievement among boys and men and economic and social disadvantage. The stagnation of male educational attainment bodes ill for the well-being of recent cohorts of U.S. males, particularly minorities and those from low-income households… As the importance of educational investments for earnings has magnified, differences in educational attainment and family formation among socioeconomic, racial, and gender groups have become an increasingly important differentiator in the life chances of children. (Autor and Wasserman 2013, 50). Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 3 Male educational underachievement also has social and political consequences, particularly if the boys or men are poor, or they belong to disadvantaged groups. There appears to be a strong relationship between male educational achievement and other phenomena such as violence and the unraveling of family, the loosening of community cohesion, poor health outcomes (e.g., growth in risky behaviors), and economic instability (Freire et al. 2018; Brozo 2019; Heilman et al. 2017). The Human Capital Project indicates that for many low- and middle-income countries, raising the number of years of schooling and of learning achievement will have a substantial impact on a country’s score on the human capital index (HCI) (World Bank 2018a). The HCI measures the human capital potential based on current trends in health, education, and other social indicators. Currently, worldwide, a child born in 2020 can expect to achieve on average just 56 percent of his or her potential productivity as a future worker (World Bank 2021). If future increases are dependent on the performance of specific groups in the population, then focusing on those groups can make a difference and should be given increased attention. In other words, addressing boys’ underachievement could lead to significant improvements in productivity. If there were no underachievement of boys—that is, if boys had the same learning-adjusted years of schooling as girls—a child’s long-term annual productivity would be 1.3 percent higher. Maintained over a decade, this represents an increase in total production of 13.9 percent (table 1.1). In MENA, the increase would be 33.9 percent, and in East Asia and Pacific, the increase would amount to 19.4 percent over 10 years. Table 1.1 Change in HCI if boys' underachievement is eradicated Increase Increase in total in annual production over HCI Alternative productivity 10 years 2020 HCI* (%) (%) Middle East and North Africa 0.57 0.58 3.0 33.9 East Asia and Pacific 0.59 0.60 1.8 19.4 Europe and Central Asia 0.69 0.70 1.1 11.4 Latin America and Caribbean 0.56 0.56 1.3 13.9 North America 0.75 0.75 0.7 7.2 Sub-Saharan Africa 0.40 0.40 0.5 4.9 South Asia 0.48 0.48 0.4 3.7 World 0.56 0.57 1.3 13.9 Source: Calculations based on World Bank 2021. Note: *The alternative HCI is calculated based on the assumption that boys’ learning-adjusted years of schooling are raised to the level of girls’. Finally, addressing boys’ and men’s educational underachievement should also be seen through the optic of international and national commitments to provide all citizens with educational opportunities. If there is any group of individuals who are not receiving a quality education, whatever the group and whatever the reasons, there is a moral imperative to address it. When education systems face crises, such as the COVID pandemic, their weaknesses are often laid bare. In many countries, education authorities are facing formidable challenges to ensuring quality education for all groups of students. The potential impact of the pandemic on the educational achievement of boys and men may be difficult to predict; but the findings of this report suggest that it is likely to merit specific attention, not least because failure to learn has cumulative implications. 4 | 1. Introduction The Objective of This Report This report aims to increase understanding of educational underachievement among boys and men at the international level. The audience includes researchers, policymakers, and the public. Its purpose is to inform potential policy and program interventions in this area. The report argues that male educational underachievement requires action. The first section of the report takes stock, and examines trends and distributions both between countries and within countries. The second section examines the literature on male educational underachievement, and identifies the principal analytical approaches that have been used to understand and explain the phenomenon. Section three explores the types of interventions that have been adopted by countries to address male educational underachievement. The final section presents the main conclusions of the report and proposes a research agenda. Throughout this report, educational underachievement is referred to in three ways. First, underachievement in terms of low levels of participation in education, including enrollment and retention; second, underachievement in terms of low levels of completion or graduation; and third, underachievement in terms of low student learning outcomes, also referred to as “underperformance”, and assessed in terms of international or regional large-scale student assessments. Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 5 2. Taking Stock of Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men Educational underachievement among boys and men is found across the world in various ways and to various extents. However, given the limited global research in the field, further exploration of the phenomenon is needed from an international comparative perspective. This section takes stock of what is known about underachievement of boys and men in participation and completion of education, learning outcomes, and in terms of its distribution within countries. Underachievement in Participation in and Completion of Education How male educational underachievement is determined from country to country often depends on the level of education under review. At the basic, compulsory educational levels (that is, the primary and often lower secondary levels, depending on the country), the focus of much of the literature on boys’ educational underachievement has been on learning outcomes. This is generally because there are few countries where girls’ participation in basic education outnumbers boys’ participation by a substantial degree. In the poorest countries, girls are often underrepresented in basic education. Countries at higher income levels tend to have reached full enrollment (i.e., 100 percent enrollment of both boys and girls) in basic education and thus, by definition there is little underachievement of boys relative to girls in terms of education participation (figure 2.1). Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men Figure 2.1 Gender Figure gaps 2.1 Gender (boys gaps girls) (boys --girls) in primary in primary gross gross enrollment enrollment ratio ratio (percentage points) (percentage points) Source: Based on latest available data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics database in the World Bank’s EdStats database. Source: Based on latest available data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics database in the World Bank’s EdStats database. The degree of boys’ underachievement at the secondary level in terms of participation in education 6 | 2. Taking Stock of Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men The degree of boys’ underachievement at the secondary level in terms of participation in education appears to be associated with a country’s income (figure 2.2). Out of 162 countries for which data are available, there are 90 countries (56 percent) in which boys are underachieving relative to girls at the secondary education level as determined by gross enrollment ratios (GER). However, among low-income countries, 7 out of 23 (30 percent) register boys’ underachievement in secondary school participation, compared to 19 out of 35 (54 percent) for lower-middle-income countries, 31 out of 44 (70 percent) for upper-middle-income countries, and 33 out of 60 (55 percent) for high-income countries. This suggests that male educational underachievement may follow a pattern in which it is less prominent at the lower income levels, increases as a country’s income level grows, and then begins to decline again for countries at the higher levels of income. This pattern likely mirrors the one seen in overall educational development across the world, in which richer countries tend to have Educational higher levels of secondary enrollment, often closing enrollment. Among Boys and Men Underachievement in on full Figure 2.2 Figure 2.2Gender Gender gap (boys gap - girls) (boys in secondary - girls) gross enrollment in secondary ratio gross enrollment ratio (percentage points) (percentage points) Source: Based on latest available data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics database in the World Bank’s EdStats database. Source: Based on latest available data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics database in the World Bank’s EdStats Note: The gross enrollment ratio is the number of students enrolled in a given level of education, regardless of age, expressed as a database. percentage of the official school-age population corresponding to the same level of education. Note: The gross enrollment ratio is the number of students enrolled in a given level of education, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the official school-age population corresponding to the same level of education. A similar pattern can be seen in secondary school completion rates (figure 2.3). Out of 159 countries for which data are available, 96 (60 percent) register boys’ underachievement relative to girls at the A similar pattern can be seen in secondary school completion rates (figure 2.3). Out of 159 secondary level as determined by completion rates. However, among low-income countries, 10 out countries for which data are available, 96 (60 percent) register boys’ underachievement relative to of 22 (45 girls percent) at the register secondary boys’ level as underachievement in secondary determined by completion rates.school completion, However, compared to 25 among low-income out of 38 (66 percent) for lower-middle-income countries, 32 out of 45 (71 percent) countries, 10 out of 22 (45 percent) register boys’ underachievement in secondary for upper-middle- school income countries, completion, and 27 compared to 25out ofof out 5138(53 percent) (66 percent)for forhigh-income-countries. Thus, a similar 32 out pattern lower-middle-income countries, of 45 (71 percent) for upper-middle-income countries, and 27 out of 51 (53 percent) for high-income- countries. Thus, a similar pattern emerges, in which boys’ underachievement in completion rates increases and then declines with the level of economic development. Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 7 emerges, in which boys’ underachievement in completion rates increases and then declines with the level of economic development. Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men 2.3Gender Figure 2.3 Figure Gender gap (boys gap - girls) (boys in secondary - girls) school completion in secondary school rate completion rate (percentage points) (percentage points) Source: Based on latest available data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics database in the World Bank’s EdStats database. Source: Based on latest available data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics database in the World Bank’s EdStats Note: Secondary completion is computed by dividing the total number of students in the last grade of secondary education school minus database. repeaters in that grade by Note: Secondary the total number completion of children is computed byof official dividingcompleting age. number of students in the last grade the total of secondary education school minus repeaters in that grade by the total number of children of official completing age. Underachievement in educational participation is most prevalent among young men at the tertiary education level (figure Underachievement 2.4). Out of 152 in educational countries participation isfor which most data are prevalent available, among young 116 men(76atpercent) register the tertiary education level (figure 2.4). Out of 152 countries for which data are available, 116 (76 percent) by young men’s underachievement relative to women at the tertiary education level as determined gross enrollment register ratios. underachievement young men’s relative to countries, However, among low-income women at onlythe 2 out of 18 tertiary (11 percent) education level register as determined by gross enrollment ratios. However, among low-income countries, only 2 out for men’s underachievement at the tertiary level. In contrast, the proportion jumps up sharply middle of 18 (11 high-income and countries: percent) register 20 out of 33 (61 men’s underachievement percent) at the lower-middle-income tertiary countries jumps registered level. In contrast, the proportion up sharply for middle and high-income countries: 20 out of 33 (61 percent) lower-middle-income for men’s underachievement at the tertiary education level, along with 40 out of 43 (93 percent) upper-middle income countries registered countries, men’s and 52 out of underachievement 55 at (95 the percent) tertiary for high-income education level, alongcountries. with 40 out of 43 (93 percent) for upper-middle income countries, and 52 out of 55 (95 percent) for high-income countries. 17 BoysUnderachievement Educational 8 | 2. Taking Stock of Educational Underachievement Among and Men Among Boys and Men Figure 2.4 Figure 2.4 Gender Gender gap (boys gap - girls) (boys in tertiary - girls) education in tertiary gross enrollment education grossratios enrollment ratios (percentage points) (percentage points) Source: Based on latest available data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics database in the World Bank’s EdStats database. Source: Based on latest available data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics database in the World Bank’s EdStats Note: For the calculation of gross enrollment ratios at the tertiary education level, the population used is the 5-year age group, starting database. from the official secondary school graduation age. Note: For the calculation of gross enrollment ratios at the tertiary education level, the population used is the 5-year evident As isgroup, age in figure starting 2.5, from the not secondary official only are school fewergraduation men participating age. in tertiary education, the proportion of men who finish their programs of study is substantially lower than for women. As is evident in figure 2.5, not only are fewer men participating in tertiary education, the proportion of men education Tertiary who finish is a very their diverse programs ofundertaking —it encompasses study is substantially lower thana for variety of types of educational women. experience (post-secondary technical school, community college, undergraduate and graduate education, etc.), and a multitude of disciplines. Taking this diversity into consideration, despite the evident achievement in terms of women’s high levels of participation and completion at the tertiary level, there appear to be systematic differences in the choice of field of study between young men and women. These differences are already evident during secondary school, and they appear to strengthen at the tertiary education level. In particular, men are overrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects, economics, and many other related fields, while women are overrepresented in nursing, teaching, and the humanities (Hammond, et al. 2020). According to Delaney and Devereux (2021), women enrolled in STEM courses are more likely than men to switch out of these fields, and the dropout rate from tertiary STEM programs is often found to be higher for women than for men. 18 Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 9 Educational Underachievement Educational AmongBoys Among Underachievement andMen Boysand Men Figure 2.5 Rates of tertiary education attainment across the population: graduation Figure and2.5 FigureRates of tertiary enrollment 2.5 Rates by of education gender, tertiary attainment c. 2019 education across attainment the across population: the graduation population: graduationand andenrollment enrollment by gender, c. 2019 by gender, c. 2019 Percentage of 25+ year-olds completed Gross graduation ratio from first degree Percentage of 25+ Percentage of year-olds 25+ completed year-olds Bachelor's completed Bachelor's Gross graduation Gross ratio graduation from ratio fromfirst degree first degreeprograms, Bachelor's degree or equivalent education programs, most recent year programs, degree or equivalent education or higher, most degree or equivalent education or higher, recent most recent most recent year (2007-2019) most recent year (2007-2019) or higher, most recent year (2008-2019) (2007-2019) (2008-2019) yearyear (2008-2019) Source: Source: Based Basedon on data from data the UNESCO from Institute Institute for Statistics the UNESCO fordatabase in the Statistics World Bank’s database in theEdStats World data EdStats data Bank’s Source: Based on data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics database in the World Bank’s EdStats data Another element important to take into consideration when examining underachievement in Tertiary education is a very diverse undertaking—it encompasses a variety of types of educational educational participation and completion at the tertiary level is that men outnumber women as Tertiary education experience is a very diverse undertaking—it (post-secondary encompasses a variety of types ofandeducational researchers, sciences. school, particularly in thetechnical community In a forthcoming college, publication, undergraduate King reports that thegraduate absence experience (post-secondary education, of etc.), and women among a multitude academics technical andof school, community disciplines. administrators Taking in Korea thiscollege, maydiversityundergraduate anddespite into consideration, be a contributing graduate factor to their lackthe of education, evident etc.), and achievementa multitude in terms of of disciplines. women’s Taking high levelsthis of diversity into participation consideration, and completion researchers. Similarly, Kwiek and Roszka (2020) have indicated that, in Poland, female academics in atdespite the the tertiary evident achievement level, sciencethere appear disciplines inare terms to be ofomitted systematic often women’s high from levels differences of participation in the research choice of field groups. and of completion study between at the tertiary young men level, andthere appear women. to bedifferences These systematic are differences duringof in the choice already evident field of study secondary school, between and they youngappearmen to strengthen and women. at the These Underachievement tertiary in education differences are already Learning level. evident OutcomesIn particular, men are school, during secondary overrepresented and theyin science, appear to technology, strengthen Across theat the engineering, world,tertiary almost and educationmathematics level. In half (48 percent) (STEM) particular, of children subjects, men suffer fromeconomics, are overrepresented learning and many poverty: that other related inis,science, they are fields, technology, unable to while women engineering, are overrepresented and mathematics read and understand a simple text in (STEM)nursing, subjects, at around teaching, 10 years and economics, the of age. The humanities and (Hammond, many other learning poverty rateet related is al.while fields, an 2020).women indicatorAccording are to that combines Delaney and Devereux overrepresented the share of in nursing,(2021), primary-aged women teaching, children enrolled and who the in STEM arehumanities out of schoolcourses (Hammond, with the are more et share likely of than men students al. 2020). below According to toswitch a minimum Delaney of outand these proficiency fields, Devereux and the women in reading. (2021), dropout Since rate from reading enrolled is ain tertiary gateway STEM STEM to programs learning courses areinmore otheris often areas, likely thanfound the men to switch learning to be higher poverty outfor of women indicator than for serves these fields, andasmen. a proxy the for foundational dropout rate from tertiary learning STEMin other subjects, programs is and illustrates countries’ progress often found to be higher for women than for men. toward the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) of inclusive and Another element equitable important for quality education take to all (SDGinto4).consideration 1 For low- and when examining countries, middle-income underachievement the learning in educational poverty Another participation rate rises element important andtake completion to 53 percent. to at the tertiary into consideration level examining when outnumber women in is that men underachievement as researchers, particularly in the sciences. In a forthcoming publication, King reports that the Learningparticipation educational poverty data for and completion boys and girls are the tertiary at available level for just is that 100men outnumber women as absence of women among academics and administrators inunder Korea may countries. However, be a contributing in almost factor to researchers, all of them,particularly boys have in sciences. the rates higher In a forthcoming of learning publication, poverty than girls (figure 2.6). King reports that The countries withthethe their lack of researchers. Similarly, Kwiek and Roszka (2020) have indicated that, in Poland, absence of women among academics and administrators in Korea may be a contributing factor to greatest gaps in learning poverty for boys compared to girls are all six of the Gulf Cooperation female academics in science disciplines are often omitted from research groups. theirCouncil lack of(GCC) countries, researchers. along with Similarly, Iran and Kwiek and Argentina. Roszka 2 The learning (2020) poverty indicator have indicated that, in measures Poland, the proportion of children not reaching a minimum proficiency female academics in science disciplines are often omitted from research groups. level (MPL). However, it does not 1 https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4#. 2 The GCC countries include Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. 19 10 | 2. Taking Stock of Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men indicate how far students are from the MPL, nor does it provide information on the distribution among the learning deprived within a country. Within the group of learning-deprived students, the learning deprivation gap—which is defined as the population-standardized average distance to the MPL for students below the MPL—is greater for boys than for girls in most countries in which learning poverty data are available by gender. In summary, on average across the world, there are more boys in learning poverty, and among those in learning poverty, boys are generally further from the MPL Educational Underachievement Among Boys and have a greater spread within the group of the learning deprived than girls. and Men Figure Figure2.6 2.6Learning Learning poverty povertyrate rateby bycountry countryand and gender, gender, c. c.2015 2015 Share Share of of children children at end-of-primary at the the end-of-primary age age who who are are below below minimum minimum reading level, adjusted by reading proficiency proficiency level, adjusted out-of-school children (%) by out-of-school children (%) Source: Based Source: Based onon data data from from World World Bank Bank EdStats; EdStats; joint joint World Bank World Institute and UNESCO Bank and UNESCO for Statistics data. Institute for Statistics data. While girls in low-income countries face obstacles in accessing education, the learning poverty rate While girls for boys andingirls low-income countries in low-income face countries obstacles is the same, at in accessinghigh a worryingly education, theLearning 93 percent. learning poverty rate for boys poverty and rates are girls also in low-income approximately the same countries is the for boys and girlssame, at a worryingly in high-income high countries. But 93 percent. boys have significantly Learning poverty higher rates rates areof also learning poverty than girls approximately in middle-income the same for boys countries. For example, and girls in high-income in lower-middle-income countries, the learning poverty rate for boys is 56 percent, compared countries. But boys have significantly higher rates of learning poverty than girls in middle-income to 47 percent for girls (figure 2.7). There are two regions in which boys’ learning is significantly below that countries. For example, in lower-middle-income countries, the learning poverty rate for boys is 56 of girls, on average—the MENA and the East Asia and Pacific (EAP) regions. percent, compared to 47 percent for girls (figure 2.7). There are two regions in which boys’ learning is significantly below that of girls, on average—the MENA and the East Asia and Pacific (EAP) regions. Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 11 Figure 2.7 Figure Averagelearning 2.7 Average learning poverty povertyrates gender, byby rates region, gender, andand region, income group, income c. 2015 group, c. 2015 Share of children at the end-of-primary-school age who are below minimum Share of children at the end-of-primary-school age who are below minimum reading proficiency, adjusted by out-of-school reading children proficiency, (%) adjusted by out-of-school children (%) Source: Based on data from World Bank EdStats; joint World Bank and UNESCO Institute for Statistics data. Based Source: from Results on2016 the data from World Progress inBank EdStats; Reading joint Study Literacy World(PIRLS), Bank and UNESCO which Institute is a key source ofStatistics for data for data. the learning poverty indicator, indicate that in almost two-thirds of countries boys’ underperformance Resultsto relative girlsthe from 2016 Progress in reading Reading inin is greater (towns,Study Literacy rural areas (PIRLS), villages, and remotewhich is a compared key source areas) toof data for the urban areaslearning povertyand (cities, suburbs, indicator, medium to indicate that in large towns). 3 The almost countriestwo-thirds of countries with the greatest gaps— boys’ underperformance meaning relative to girls in that boys’ underperformance reading isto (compared greater girls) isin rural areas greater (towns, in rural than invillages, urban areasand— remote were Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, Northern Ireland, South Africa, the United States, areas) compared to urban areas (cities, suburbs, and medium to large towns). The countries withand Spain. 3 the In greatest some gaps—meaning countries, that boys’ in boys’ underachievement underperformance learning outcomes is (compared to girls) a more significant is greater issue in rural in certain urban than inareas. subject areas—were Reading, Saudi which forms Arabia, the Iran, basis of Qatar, Northern the learning Ireland, poverty indicator, South to appears Africa, the United contribute States, to and Spain. the largest differences among the foundational school subjects, with boys scoring substantially lower than girls. For all countries that participated in the PIRLS and the Programme for International In some Student countries,(PISA), Assessment underachievement boys’boys in learning underachieve compared outcomes to girls is both in reading a more significant in grade 4 and atissue in age 15. Figure 2.8 shows that the greatest gaps were among those countries at the lower end certain subject areas. Reading, which forms the basis of the learning poverty indicator, appears to of the achievement contribute to distribution. the largest The with the the countries among differences most severe issue school foundational of boys’ underperformance with boysin subjects, scoring reading include the GCC countries, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, North Macedonia, Jordan, and Finland. 4 substantially lower than girls. For all countries that participated in the PIRLS and the Programme for International Similar Student findings come fromAssessment (PISA), regional student boys underachieve assessments such as thecompared to girls Latin American in reading both Laboratory for Assessment of the Quality of Education (LLECE): Regional Comparative and Explanatory in grade 4 and at age 15. Figure 2.8 shows that the greatest gaps were among those countries Study at the (grades of6); 3 and lower end thethe Southern anddistribution. achievement Eastern African Consortium The countriesfor Monitoring with the most Educational Quality severe issue of boys’ (SACMEQ) (grade 6); and the Programme for the Analysis of Education Systems (PASEC) underperformance in reading include the GCC countries, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, North (grade 6). These assessments confirm that boys Macedonia, Jordan, and Finland.4 are underachieving in reading compared to girls, with a few exceptions, including Chad, Malawi, and Tanzania (appendix tables 1—3). Similar In findings come many countries, boys’ from regional student underachievement assessments in reading such starts very as the early. Latin The EarlyAmerican Laboratory Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA), originally developed by RTI International for USAID and used (or adapted for Assessment of the Quality of Education (LLECE): Regional Comparative and Explanatory for use) Study (grades 3 and 6); the Southern and Eastern African Consortium for Monitoring Educational 3 Based on an analysis of PIRLS 2016 data undertaken for this study. 4 In Finland, while boys’ underperformance compared to girls is large, Finnish boys perform at significantly higher levels than girls in many other countries. 3 Based on an analysis of PIRLS 2016 data undertaken for this study. 4 In Finland, while boys’ underperformance compared to girls is large, Finnish boys perform at significantly higher levels than girls in many other countries. 12 | 2. Taking Stock of Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men in more than 40 countries, is a diagnostic instrument administered orally to assess subskills related to literacy acquisition of children (such as listening comprehension) in the early grades of primary school. The EGRA instrument is tailored specifically to each country (so as to be suitable for the local language and context); therefore, the ability to compare across countries is limited.5 However, when comparing boys and girls within countries, the EGRAs show significant underachievement of young boys in the Philippines, Jordan, and Vanuatu, though no differences in several other countries (appendix A, table 4). For example, while 48 percent of grade 3 girls in the Philippines were at the minimum expected proficiency level in reading (in Filipino), only 26 percent of boys were at that level. In mathematics, boys’ underachievement is limited to just a few countries; notably, the Philippines, and several of the GCC countries. This can be seen in all of the international and regional student assessments, including the Trends in International Mathematics and Science (TIMSS) study and PISA (figure 2.8) as well as LLECE, SAQMEC, and PASEC. For the countries with evident boys’ underachievement in mathematics compared to girls, the issue starts early (before grade 4), and continues throughout schooling (as shown in PISA at age 15) (figure 2.8). In science, boys’ learning underachievement is more pronounced than it is in mathematics, possibly due to the greater reading requirements in science. The underachievement in science becomes more of an issue in secondary school (figure 2.8). Again, the greatest differences between boys and girls are found among countries with lower average achievement scores. All international and regional science assessments (TIMSS, PISA, and LLECE) show a similar pattern (figure 1.14 and appendix A, table 1). The countries with the greatest issues of boys’ underachievement in science include those in the GCC, Egypt, Jordan, Finland, Iran, Cyprus, Malta, the Philippines, and Thailand (figure 2.8), as well as Chile, Paraguay, and Peru (appendix A, table 1). In some countries, boys’ learning achievement has worsened, leading to greater gaps between girls and boys over time. Figure 2.9 shows that this was the case in the PIRLS and TIMSS assessments for various grades and subjects in Iran, Israel, the Philippines, Finland, and Kazakhstan. Conversely, in some other countries, boys’ learning achievement has improved at a greater rate over time than girls’, thereby decreasing, and sometimes eliminating any statistically significant differences between boys and girls. This is the case in Chinese Taipei, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates in PIRLS and TIMSS scores (figure 2.10). In PISA, the gender gap in reading performance narrowed between 2009 and 2018 in Estonia, Ireland, Macao (China), Peru, and Singapore due to improvements in boys’ performance. 5 One important reason for being careful about making comparisons across countries is that languages vary in their orthographic complexity; thus, the expected rate of progress can vary considerably from country to country. Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 13 Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men Figure 2.8 Average achievement (scale score) in TIMSS 2019, PIRLS 2016, andEducational PISA 2018, Underachievement by gender Among Boys and Men Figure 2.8 Average achievement (scale score) in TIMSS 2019, PIRLS 2016, and PISA 2018, by gender GRADE 4 Grade 4 Mathematics Reading2.8 Average achievement (scale score) in Figure Science TIMSS 2019, PIRLS 2016, and PISA 2018, by gender Grade 4 Reading Mathematics Science Source: PIRLS 2016. Source: TIMSS 2019. Source: TIMSS 2019. Grade 8 n/a Source: PIRLS 2016. Mathematics Source: TIMSS 2019. Science Source: TIMSS 2019. GRADE 8 Grade 8 n/a Mathematics Science Source: TIMSS 2019. Source: TIMSS 2019. Source: TIMSS 2019. Source: TIMSS 2019. 24 14 | 2. Taking Stock of Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men 15-YEAR-OLDS 15-year-olds Reading Mathematics Science Source: PISA 2018. Source: PISA 2018. Source: PISA 2018. 25 Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 15 Educational Underachievement Among B Figure 2.9 Selected countries in which boys' achievement is dropping or the gap between girls and boys is increasing, PIRLS and TIMSS Figure 2.9 Selected countries in which boys' achievement is dropping or the gap between girls and boys is increasing, PIRLS an erachievement Among Boys and Men Educational Underachievement Among Boys and M Figure 2.9 Selected countries in which boys' achievement is dropping or the gap between girls and boys is increasing, PIRLS and TIMS s increasing, PIRLS and TIMSS Source: Based on data from IEA: https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/. Figure 2.10 Selected countries in which boys' achievement has increased faster than girls' (reducing the gap), PIRLS and TIM Source: Source: Based Based onfrom on data data from IEA: IEA: https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/. Figure 2.10 Selected countries in which boys' achievement has increased faster than girls' (reducing the gap), PIRLS and TIMSS Figure 2.10 Selected countries in which boys' achievement has increased faster than girls' (reducing the gap), PIRLS and TIMSS gap), PIRLS and TIMSS Source: Based on data from IEA https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/. Source: Based on data from IEA https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/. Source: Based on data from IEA https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/. 16 | 2. Taking Stock of Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men The above trends are a snapshot of the same grade over different years. It is also of interest to understand how gender differences change within a cohort of students as they progress through their education. Since TIMSS assesses grades 4 and 8 every four years, it is possible to compare the national averages of the same cohort across those two grades for the countries that participated in both grades in both years. This is shown for science in figure 2.11. While this also shows a wide range of circumstances, in most countries the gender gaps in grade 4 persist into grade 8 for the same cohort of students. Figure 2.11 Science: Relative achievement of 2015 grade 4 students as grade 8 students in 2019 Countries assessed in both grades in both assessment years Boys scored Saudi Arabia Boys scored Georgia Boys scored lower than around the around the girls in Bahrain same as girls New Zealand same as girls Chile grades 4 Oman in grades 4 Lithuania in grade 4 Japan and 8 and 8 but higher in Kuwait Turkey grade 8 Qatar Australia United Arab Emirates England Finland Norway Boys scored Chinese Taipei Sweden Singapore higher than girls in grade Hong Kong Kazakhstan Russian 4 but around SAR Federation the same in grade 8 United States France Boys scored Ireland lower than girls in Portugal grade 4 but Morocco Boys scored around the higher than Hungary same in girls in grades Italy grade 8 4 and 8 Korea, Rep. of Boys scored around the same Iran as girls in grade 4 but Cyprus lower in grade 8 Source: Based on data from IEA https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/. Economic and social disadvantage plays a role in boys who are at risk of struggling with reading. In a panel study in the United States, it was found that among disadvantaged children (based on qualifying for meal subsidies), boys had poorer early reading skills, while among non-disadvantaged children, boys’ and girls’ early reading skills were similar (Entwisle, Alexander, and Olson 2007). The transition in first grade was found to be a critical point within this longitudinal study in terms of boys’ reading development. Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 17 Remedial reading and learning disability classes tend to have an overrepresentation of boys (Brozo 2019). In addition, boys tend to be held back in a grade more often than girls, which is a concern not least because, along with school suspension, grade retention is known to be a contributor to early school leaving and worse, the “school-to-prison pipeline” (Brozo 2019). In the 2012 PISA assessment of problem-solving skills, boys scored higher than girls in most countries. However, when collaborative problem solving (a critical 21st century skill) was assessed in PISA 2015, girls outperformed boys in every country, with the relative size of the gender gap being larger than it was for reading (OECD 2017b). The largest gaps (over 40 points) were found in Australia, Finland, Latvia, New Zealand, and Sweden. Boys were found to recognize the instrumental benefits of teamwork and how it can help them work more effectively and efficiently; however, they had less positive attitudes toward relationships than girls, and were less interested in others’ opinions or wanting others to succeed. This ability to listen to others and take their viewpoints into account was mirrored in the 2018 PISA module on global interconnectedness, which found that boys in all countries except the Dominican Republic reported less of a capacity than girls to consider the perspective of others (OECD 2020). International comparative data on learning outcomes for tertiary education is scarce. Although, as discussed above, some information exists on graduation and the completion of tertiary education, these are poor proxies for actual learning: and many factors enter into a student’s decision to interrupt his or her studies. The fact that more women than men tend to graduate (although this tendency is reversed in the STEM fields) does not fully indicate the depth of knowledge and skills that have been learned. Furthermore, the diversity of tertiary education worldwide makes it particularly difficult to develop methods that measure what students learn in an internationally comparable manner. The Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) has found negligible differences in literacy proficiency between men and women, with small differences in favor of men in numeracy (OECD 2019a). The latter differences tend to be more pronounced among older cohorts. Whether this narrowing of the gender gap from school-age international assessments (such as PIRLS, TIMSS, and PISA) to the PIAAC is due to “catching up” of underperforming boys and men, or to cohort effects, whereby women were less engaged in the labor market and completed less education in the past in many countries, is not yet clear. Distribution of Underachievement Within Countries Taking a more granular perspective at the country level, it appears that a wide distribution of underachievement can exist, with gender gaps more pronounced among certain groups of students. Bossavie and Kanninen (2018) examined the “gender gap reversal” and found that males tend to have a wider dispersal of education outcomes (with achievement defined as enrollment, completion, or learning levels) than females. Thus, the overall underachievement of males has mainly been due to a clutch of poorly-performing male students who bring down the average score, particularly in lower-income countries. Although there appears to be less, or no underachievement of males at the top of the distribution, this does not appear to have the same impact on the overall mean. Two hypotheses are proposed by Bossavie and Kanninen (2018). First, the “mean hypothesis” suggests that girls’ returns from education are higher than for boys, and this makes them invest more in their own education. Secondly, the “tail hypothesis” suggests that girls’ and boys’ performance is on average the same, but boys’ performance has more variance, including more boys at the lower end of achievement. As such, the fact that a minimum level of performance is needed to complete a schooling level means that the number of boys that have completed that level is lower than that of girls. This “tail hypothesis” has strong explanatory power for the gender gap reversal, particularly in 18 | 2. Taking Stock of Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men low and middle-income countries. In high-income countries, the “mean hypothesis” appears to be a more powerful explanation of the gender gap reversal. Significant geographic heterogeneity of gender disparities in learning outcomes was found in a study of three East African countries: Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda (Buhl-Wiggers, Jones, and Thornton 2021). Boys’ overall educational underachievement was found in each of these three countries; however, the gap between boys and girls was geographically clustered, and even reversed in some places. The authors concluded that “systematic female disadvantage in schooling is no longer the norm” (Buhl-Wiggers, Jones, and Thornton 2021, 1). In their analysis of Florida birth certificates matched to school records, Autor et al. (2020) concluded that female advantage in childhood behavioral and academic outcomes is driven by gender gaps at the extremes of the outcome distribution. Their research also indicates that a more disadvantaged family environment disproportionately harms boys’ childhood outcomes, including in disciplinary infractions, standardized test scores, and high school graduation rates. A different scenario is seen in Sri Lanka, where greater gaps are found among more advantaged students (box 2.1). Box 2.1 Gender gaps in Sri Lanka In 2018, the World Bank prepared a discussion paper on gender gaps in Sri Lanka; this paper notes that male underachievement has emerged and widened significantly at the upper secondary level, and continues into the tertiary level. Sri Lanka is an example of a middle-income country in which boys are less likely to transition to the next level of education, and are more likely to drop out than girls, particularly at higher levels of the education system. A clear pattern exists in gender disparity among different socioeconomic groups, although the pattern is the opposite of the one found in other countries. Male underachievement compared to females is greatest among the wealthiest segments of the population at every level of the education system. Females in the wealthiest quintile have a greater advantage over their male counterparts than females in the poorest quintile. Disparities exist on all national measures of educational achievement. According to the results of the grade 5 examination over a four-year period (2011–2014), the percentage of high performers has increased among both girls and boys. However, girls have consistently outperformed boys. Girls also outperform boys at the lower secondary and higher secondary level. In 2011, 66 percent of girls, compared to only 50 percent of boys qualified for the G.C.E A-level examinations, and girls continue to outperform boys at the higher secondary level. Here again, girls significantly outperformed boys, with 67 percent of the girls compared to 51 percent of the boys qualifying for admission to universities in 2014. Source: World Bank 2018. Within countries, the gender gaps tend to be greatest among those students who do not reach basic proficiency levels; and it is predominantly boys who are not reaching this basic level. The gender gaps are less pronounced among those students who have reached high levels of proficiency; here Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 19 it is more of a mixture across countries of boys or girls being more likely to have reached these high levels. For example, an analysis of the TIMSS 2019 and PIRLS 2016 data, in which the difference between the percentage of boys and girls who were (1) below the low international benchmark; and (2) at or above the high international benchmark, is shown in appendix A, figure 1. For grade 4 reading and science and grade 8 mathematics and science, the gender gaps within countries were greatest between boys and girls who were below the low international benchmark, with boys more likely to be in this group of low performers. At the high end of performance, the gender gaps were more mixed across countries, with boys performing better in some countries and girls performing better in others. The only exception to this is in grade 4 mathematics, where both extremes occurred: countries were more likely to have boys performing below the low international benchmark than girls, while they were also more likely to have boys performing at or above the high international benchmark (appendix A, figure 1B). As countries become richer, they tend to depend more on their human capital. If boys tend to fall behind as countries are expanding their access to education, and moving from low to middle-income levels, there are likely consequences for social and economic development. Not all boys are underachieving, and the size of the difference is not always substantial. While boys are overrepresented at the lower ends of achievement, there are also girls in these groups who are struggling. Nevertheless, the findings on educational underachievement among boys and men have important implications for policymakers and educators. The next section explores the factors that have been found, or are assumed, to explain or impact educational underachievement among boys and men. 20 | 3. What Explains Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men? 3. What Explains Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men? A review of literature from the United States (where the most research on this topic has been conducted) and elsewhere shows three overlapping explanations for educational underachievement among boys and men: (1) labor market characteristics that contribute to the decision to underachieve; (2) social norms that might encourage or reinforce underachievement; and (3) characteristics of educational processes (teaching and learning) that may unintentionally promote underachievement. The factor of disadvantage is woven through all of the explanations of educational underachievement among boys and men. Invariably, the literature indicates that boys and men are particularly vulnerable to underachievement when they are poor; members of certain races or ethnicities; and/or of the lower social classes. Disadvantage, however it is defined, affects both girls and boys. All children and young adults suffer when they are victims of racism and other forms of discrimination, regardless of gender. It can be argued that focusing on boys rather than using the lenses of privilege and disadvantage distracts from locating the most fundamental factors that are contributing to underachievement more generally, whether for boys or girls. However, the literature emphasizes that boys who are disadvantaged tend to experience more educational underachievement than girls. Labor Market Patterns Male educational underachievement at the secondary school and university levels has sometimes been accompanied by relative changes in labor market access and earnings for men and women. For the United States, Autor and Wasserman (2013) note that “over the last three decades, the labor market trajectory of males in the United States has turned downward along four dimensions: skills acquisition; employment rates; occupational stature; and real wage levels” (7). They also assert that changes in the US labor market resulting from certain global trends have contributed to an increased demand for workers with higher education relative to those with lower levels of schooling. First, the US labor market and that of other higher income countries have demanded higher levels of skills. Second, labor unions, which had successfully protected and obtained relatively generous incomes for blue-collar workers (who had not needed higher levels of education) have been in decline. Finally, the globalization of labor markets has had a particularly negative effect on demand for low skills in the labor market of richer countries. Two consequences have arisen from these changes in the US labor market (Autor and Wasserman 2013). First, men’s wages have declined, particularly for the youngest and the least-educated, and wages have grown for women, particularly for those with four-year degrees. Second, occupational stature has changed for both men and women. Both men and women have moved out of blue-collar and clerical jobs. However, men, particularly less educated men, have shifted toward service jobs (which have lower pay and job security) while women have shifted toward higher-skilled jobs. Given the changing wage structure and an increasing polarization of the labor market, the underachievement of boys is expected to have larger impacts on their labor market outcomes compared to a couple of decades ago. As Cortes (2016) found, the workers who are hardest hit in the long run by the effects Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 21 of technological change are those who stay in routine jobs rather than those who switch to more nonroutine occupations that require more education. Relative levels of education could have contributed to these trends, which occurred at the same time as the gender gap reversed in higher education in the United States. Starting with the cohorts born around 1960, the proportion of women with four-year degrees started to outpace that of men. However, Autor and Wasserman (2013) stress that, although the earnings gender gap in the labor market has narrowed in the United States, there has been no reversal. “Among young four-year college graduates, males earn an average of $24.30 per hour versus $20.50 among females. Among 25 to 39-year-old high school graduates with no college attendance, males averaged $14.70 per hour in 2010 versus $11.90 among females” (Autor and Wasserman 2013, 26). Furthermore, the top of the education achievement pyramid and income bands are mostly populated by men. These rapidly developing trends in the labor market have fed into a dynamic that was already underway. Women who have attended college—and they already did so in increasing numbers by the 1960s— have benefited more from the changing labor market than men who were traditionally employed in professions that required lower educational levels. Essentially, men’s education performance has not yet “caught up” with the changes in the labor market, whereas women were more ready to take advantage of these new opportunities.6 However, men’s behavior has not changed in the expected direction. Male enrollment in tertiary education is not growing, even though “the economic case for the four-year college degree for young US adults—both male and female—has probably never been stronger. Seen in this light, the flagging college attainment of US males is all the more puzzling” (Autor and Wasserman 2013, 26). Several explanations have been put forward for this counterintuitive trend. One is that males do not have enough information on the returns for furthering their education. For example, Jensen (2010) found that eighth-grade boys in the Dominican Republic believed that the returns from secondary education were extremely low compared to the actual returns. Another possibility is that because it takes time to build up enough human capital to be competitive in the labor market, there are few immediate opportunities to reverse any ill fortune in the development of human capital. Boys who fall behind during the earlier grades are simply not able to “catch up” and build the expertise needed by the time they are of working age and therefore leave school. Efforts to address this phenomenon through orienting youth to vocational training are often inadequate, because it is commonly viewed as an inferior form of education. Another possibility is that it may not be a lack of information that is preventing youth from obtaining further education, but the lack of effective remedial opportunities (Brozo 2019). The need for immediate employment can create pressures that undermine the potential benefits of education. Many can simply not afford to wait to finish their studies and reap the evident benefit of greater employment opportunities. As discussed below, there might be greater pressure on men than women to engage in income-generating activities at the ages where secondary or tertiary education are generally available. For example, in the countryside in Sri Lanka, the opportunities in Colombo for immediate revenue-generating activities contribute to endemic male drop out and migration (World Bank 2018b). It is important to note that the opportunity to quickly earn revenue that may lead young men to quit school includes criminal activity—for example, selling illicit drugs. In many Central American and Caribbean countries, for example, the returns from criminal activity are quite high, and thus 6 However, as previously noted, men still outnumber women enrolled in STEM fields at the university level; but the gap is narrowing. 22 | 3. What Explains Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men? the opportunity cost of staying in school (particularly since there are few available legitimate job opportunities) is low in comparison. Criminal activity is of course strongly associated with violence. Thus, the opportunity cost of staying in school is evidently very high if young men decide that it would be better to take on illegal activities and incur the associated risks. In some countries, such as those in the GCC countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates), some employers meet their skilled workforce needs by hiring expatriates. Although governments in the region are pursuing nationalization policies, there remain few incentives for nationals to compete for these positions. An additional explanation is that some countries, including many in MENA, have traditionally favored men for guaranteed public sector employment. This may dampen the demand for boys and men to pursue higher levels of education, because it is not required for a successful career (World Bank 2019). However, not all countries can afford guaranteed public employment: this factor may have become progressively less influential in the GCC region. In many economies, there are simply not enough quality jobs that require skilled labor. Furthermore, when jobs in the formal economy are available, access to these jobs is not determined by education alone. In Egypt, for example, Assaad (2017) indicates that secondary education no longer provides access to formal employment, as was the case in the past. Rather, it mostly leads to employment in the informal sector, family businesses, or agriculture. Since an increasing proportion of women continue their studies after secondary education, this has had the greatest impact on men. Commensurate labor market opportunities are not always present for women either, although they still attend university in record numbers. Female labor market participation rates are the lowest in the world in the MENA region, even while the gender gap in favor of females’ participation in and completion of higher education there is the highest globally (World Bank 2019). It is easier for men to find jobs because of powerful social norms, and sometimes explicit policies that prevent women from entering or competing on equal footing in the labor market (Autor and Wasserman 2013). Here, the need for boys to invest in more education is possibly diminished. For example, in some GCC countries, only men can teach boys and only women can teach girls in schools. Given the lack of male teachers, especially in certain subject areas, GCC countries have resorted to importing male teachers from other Arab countries, despite there being plenty of qualified women ready to take on the job (Ridge 2014). Hence, there is another puzzle at play, whereby women have relatively higher access to education, but lower access to gainful employment. Under these circumstances, and from a labor market perspective, why do girls stay in school? One theory is that the changing marriage market has influenced women’s choices to pursue higher education, whereas the same market forces have diminished the interest of men in pursuing further schooling (Greenwood et al. 2014). Delaying marriage and investing more in education may be a rational choice for women in situations where men of equal educational status are unemployed, and so assortative trends thus change. In Egypt, for instance, women who pursue higher education often marry men who have a higher socioeconomic status, defined generally by their education level (Assaad 2017). Social Norms Considerable research has been undertaken on social norms as a key factor leading to educational underachievement among boys and men. Commonly held beliefs about the role of schooling in the lives of males and females have a profound effect on how youth engage in education. These norms are sustained by the family, the community, and institutions such as schools, among others, and they influence the performance of youth at school (Jha et al. 2017). Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 23 Much research on the effect of social norms has focused on the concept of “hegemonic masculinity” and how different definitions influence the choices made by boys and men when it comes to education (Jha and Kelleher 2006; Jha et al. 2017; Brozo 2019; Levtov and Spindler forthcoming). “Hegemonic masculinity” encompasses a set of social norms (for example, emphasizing sexuality, physical strength, and social dominance) that can be at odds with those that are conducive to academic success. Specific behaviors associated with school are sometimes considered effeminate—for example reading, and other seemingly passive activities that are key to a successful academic experience. The strength of these norms is often shaped by the importance of membership in groups that accentuate them. When social stereotypes for males emphasize behaviors and priorities that diminish the importance of education, there are strong peer and other community pressures to underestimate the importance and value of education. Those who do not do so may be considered less masculine. This research also examines why boys engage in violent and other risky behavior more than girls (Brozo 2019). One variation of this concept is that boys’ behavior in school can be motivated by masculinity identity characteristics that in turn lead to academic failure: characteristics such as disruption, resisting authority, and assuming a “cool pose” in school (Jha et al. 2017). This is sometimes referred to as “laddish” behavior. These comportments in schools and in classrooms can undermine the academic experience of boys and lead to underachievement. One example of the power of social norms in shaping educational achievement comes from the Caribbean, as described in box 3.1. Box 3.1 The Caribbean and the Man Box: The power of social norms in shaping educational achievement The educational systems in many Caribbean countries have reached gender parity in enrollment at the primary and lower secondary levels, but they start to diverge significantly at the upper secondary and tertiary levels. In many cases, boys’ dropout rates are much higher than girls’ at the secondary level, and the performance of girls and boys differs substantially on the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate examinations, which are a prerequisite to university. In 2000, twice as many women as men (202.5 women per 100 men) were enrolled in higher education. Among the contributing factors to the educational underachievement of boys and men in Caribbean countries, notions of masculinity play an important role. The InterAmerican Bank, with Promundo, an organization that is dedicated to promoting positive images of manhood, conducted a “Man Box” study in Jamaica, which explored the set of personal beliefs that place pressure on men to behave in certain ways that, among other results, works against educational success. The Man Box study explored the set of personal beliefs as communicated by parents, families, the media, peers, and other members of society, that place pressure on men to behave a certain way. As a concept, the Man Box aims to measure how young men encounter external social messages and subsequently internalize them. It consists of seven pillars: (1) notions of self-sufficiency rather than cooperation; (2) “acting tough”; (3) rigid masculine gender roles; (4) heterosexuality and homophobia; (5) hypersexuality; (6) aggression and control; and (7) dismissal of the importance of education for work. The higher the score, the more “masculine” their perceptions, with those scoring high being described as being “in the Man Box.” The study found that there was a strong relationship between those who scored high 24 | 3. What Explains Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men? on the Man Box scale and negative attitudes regarding education. For example, these participants tended to believe that higher education would not lead to promising careers “without having money or connections” (28). Men with lower educational attainment, who had unstable occupations, and who were inside the Man Box were all more likely to feel that social pressure strongly influenced the way they defined masculinity. Without the economic ability to pursue tertiary education, many resort to “low-hanging fruit” such as participation in gangs and a life of crime to bolster their sense of manhood and to create the illusion of being in control. Young men inside the Man Box are likely to have completed fewer years of education, while men outside the Man Box were more likely to have completed tertiary education and less likely to have studied only up to secondary school. Men outside the Man Box were also more likely to have obtained a Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate. Regardless of the differences in education outcomes and the role that the Man Box may play, labor market opportunities in Jamaica tend to favor men. Men continue to earn more than women, even for similar work. Generally, Jamaican youth unemployment levels are relatively high, with young women having higher unemployment rates than men (35 percent versus 24 percent). In other words, “schooling is perceived as a matter for girls and young women, and work as a more appropriate space for boys and young men” (13). An important caveat to this finding is that men without education find jobs in unstable occupations, such as in the informal sector. As a result, a substantial number of them lack the necessary skills to improve their socioeconomic status and sustain economic development in the region. It is important to note that social norms are not the only reason why boys do poorly at school. The Man Box study also points to the lack of financial and social support as a key reason for terminating studies. Source: Levtov and Spindler (forthcoming). The Sri Lanka study discussed in box 2.1 conducted focus groups on educational underachievement among boys and men that included students, teachers, and parents. Through these groups, several key norms that contribute to a lower level of academic success were confirmed. One finding is that students and parents both thought that boys did not have to work as hard to achieve the same results as girls (teachers did not agree). This belief led to less parental oversight of boys’ academic activities such as homework, or examination results. Furthermore, boys felt that pursuing senior secondary education was not important to them due to masculine norms. It is of course also important to understand and address limiting attitudes and behaviors of girls that lead them to forego employment after graduating from secondary education, opting instead to stay at home and continue their studies. UNGEI/EAP finds similar trends in other countries in Asia (2012). Among the theories on how family affects social norms, much has been written about “fatherless” households, particularly those that are poorer or otherwise disadvantaged. In such cases, in the US literature, boys tend to experience more educational underachievement, and girls’ educational performance is unaffected (or is affected significantly less). This may reflect the absence of male role models for boys in contrast to the presence of female role models (single mothers) for girls.7 As 7 Single parent households in the United States and in most other countries are overwhelmingly headed by women. Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 25 Autor and Wasserman (2013, 44) note, “the diminished involvement of the related male parent may magnify the emerging gender gap in educational attainment and labor market outcomes.” Doherty et al. (2015) indicate that the impact of the absence of a father may endure through college. Lundberg (2017) also found that fathers’ absence does lead to boys having more problems in school, although the effects might not last until university. The international literature is not necessarily aligned in this regard. In Denmark, although the influence of family background on educational achievement is similar to that of the United States, gender differences are weaker when examining adult outcomes. “Paternal education has some significant, though smaller, effects on the gender education that favor sons (and that decline over time) but has larger positive effects on the employment and earnings of daughters,” according to Brenøe and Lundberg (2017, 3). In a comparison of China, Japan, and the United States, Akabayasi et al. (2020) found that, although low household income tends to have more adverse effects on language test scores for boys than for girls in the United States, it does not have an impact on the gender gap in test scores in China, and tends to affect girls more adversely than boys in Japan. In Latin America and the Caribbean, there is no discernible difference in gender education performance between girls and boys as a result of father absence in poorer households (DeRose, Huarcaya, and Salazar-Arango 2018). Even when he is present the father may not play a particularly strong role in ensuring the engagement of children (particularly boys) in the school experience, unless his educational level is relatively high. Diprete and Buchmann (2012) note that having a father in the home who has some college education contributes to high levels of male college completion. This speaks to a possible intergenerational effect. Fathers can have an important role to play in children’s literacy development (Clark 2009), especially by modeling reading so boys associate reading and literacy activities with men, given that early years and primary school teachers are predominantly women and mothers tend to read more to children than fathers (Schwanenflugel and Knapp 2019). In terms of cultural factors that affect fathers’ involvement in education, historically in the Middle East, the mother has been viewed as being responsible for the upbringing and education of her children, at least until adolescence. In contrast, fathers in the region are expected to be material providers for their families, and this requirement is enshrined in the legal codes of most MENA countries (Ridge et al. 2018). In addition to this, there is a prevalence of gender segregation at the school level for both students and teachers in schools, especially in the GCC countries (Ridge 2009). This has resulted in schools becoming gender-segregated spaces that exclude the opposite-sex parent from a son’s or daughter’s education. The school can facilitate and encourage parental involvement, or it can be an unwelcoming place for parents (Jha et al. 2017). The current situation of emergency distance education due to the COVID-19 pandemic seems to be increasing the involvement, or at least understanding, of parents in their children’s education, though this is likely an uneven phenomenon across and within countries, and between mothers and fathers. Teachers are the most important people in the lives of students at school, and thus they often constitute strong vectors for the transmittal of norms, whether they be “pro-academic” or not, and whether they differentiate between boys, girls, and/or other discriminating characteristics. For example, teachers and school authorities may expect that boys will “act out,” particularly boys from particular socioeconomic groups, ethnicities, or races. This can become a self-fulfilling prophecy in that teachers may discipline boys differently, or may merely accept as “normal” such behavior. 26 | 3. What Explains Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men? Furthermore, schools may not encourage boys who do not show interest in academics. Some research in Jamaica has shown that boys who are interested in academics are not supported by the school system, and are influenced by the expectations of the hegemonic masculine discourse, and thus are less likely to succeed academically (Levtov and Spindler forthcoming). Teacher expectations can also reinforce gendered behavior in the classroom, hindering performance. “Laddish” behavior is not only reinforced by community and peer groups, but by the expectations of the school systems themselves, which can also perpetuate hegemonic masculinity norms. As Jha and Pouezevara (2016) noted, “Gender stereotypes, gendered socialization, and gendered expectations both at home and in school are considered to be the main reasons for observed patterns of underachievement to have emerged and be sustained so consistently across different contexts. … Accordingly, parents expect girls to behave and study, while “boys will be boys,” and teachers’ expectations are also shaped by these stereotypes” (37). The social norm landscape is inhabited by a variety of social influences. Within the same community, there can be norms that promote the education of boys as well as girls, in addition to those that diminish its importance. Various actors communicate a panoply of norms, some of which are positively associated with academic success. None of these are unitary entities, and there are often “mixed messages.” Generally, it appears that the gender gap in educational attainment partly results from greater sensitivity of boys to difficulties in the home, and childhood disadvantage. Even if not specifically focused on boys, the greater sensitivity of boys to disadvantage implies that programs targeted at disadvantaged students may reduce gender gaps (Delaney and Devereux 2021). Learning, Teaching, and Characteristics of Education Systems Differences in the ways boys and girls learn—their “learning styles”—and the need to match instruction to learning styles has been a common belief, but it is one that is not based on evidence. In fact, a systematic review of research into the belief in, and use of, learning styles among educators found that there is a substantial body of literature identifying learning styles as a neuromyth or “urban legend” but that support for the belief in matching instruction to learning styles remains high (Newton and Salvi 2020). A more useful way to examine differences between students in their learning practices and outcomes (for both boys and girls) is to explore what they bring to their schooling experience—their prior knowledge and skills—both cognitive and noncognitive (including social skills and behaviors)—as well as their engagement in the learning process. This is because learning takes place when the level of instruction is aligned with the goals for learning and the students’ prior knowledge and skills, as well as their interests and attention. As children enter formal education, DiPrete and Jennings (2012) found that boys begin with less- developed social and behavioral skills, and that this can explain gender differences in early academic outcomes. A review of the literature by Delaney and Devereux (2021) found some differences in average noncognitive skills between males and females, and some of those are related to educational achievement; but they also found that there is strong evidence to suggest that these skills are malleable and dependent on the environment. Boys are often believed to be less motivated than girls to achieve at school, although there is little and mixed evidence of this. The 2015 PISA assessment found that 15-year-old boys were less likely than girls to report that they want top grades at school, less likely to be anxious about their grades, Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 27 and less likely to report that they expect to complete university. However, boys were more likely than girls to report that they are ambitious or competitive (OECD 2017a). A study of Australian secondary schools found that girls were higher in learning focus, planning, study management, and persistence, while boys were higher in self-sabotage or self-handicapping, which can stem from low control over outcomes (Martin 2004). However, the effect sizes were small, and the differences were a matter of degree and not of kind of motivation, suggesting that programs to address motivation need not be markedly different for boys and girls. A fear of failure was expressed less often by boys than girls in almost every education system that participated in PISA 2018 (OECD 2019b). As noted in the previous section, boys are often behind girls in the early grades of schooling, particularly in reading. In addition to prior knowledge, skills, and behaviors, at least five classroom elements interact to impact a student’s engagement in the learning process: the learning environment; the curriculum; assessment; instruction; and classroom leadership and management (Tomlinson and Moon 2013). Each of these can either support or deter learning, and need to be examined in the context of boys’ underperformance. With the significant underperformance of boys compared to girls in many countries across the world, particularly in MENA and EAP countries, it is clear that education systems in these cases are not meeting the needs of large groups of boys. In many of the countries with the most extreme cases (such as the GCC countries), the education systems may still be in a relatively early stage, having expanded access to education to near universal levels in just the last 50 years; but they are still at a developmental stage in terms of preparing a cadre of teachers with the skills to move beyond mere curriculum delivery to engaging students, assessing for understanding, and employing effective pedagogies to meet students’ needs. A four-year project looking into issues associated with the different academic achievement of boys and girls in England found that there was no support for the idea of a case for boy-friendly pedagogies. “Pedagogies which appeal to and engage boys are equally girl-friendly. They characterize quality teaching, and as such are just as suitable and desirable for girls as for boys” (Younger and Warrington 2006, 15). Engaging and motivating students in their learning requires attention to their background, interests, knowledge, and skills, regardless of gender. There is greater diversity in these characteristics within genders than between them. However, the degree to which education systems give attention to student engagement and motivation, especially among the lower achievers, is likely to be related to the strength of learning outcomes for boys and girls overall. This includes the school and classroom climate—that is, the social, physical, and academic characteristics of schools and classrooms. A classroom that is conducive to learning has noise and disorder kept at acceptable levels; students listen to their teachers and to each other; and they are able to concentrate on their schoolwork. OECD PISA results have consistently shown a positive association between students’ perception of the classroom disciplinary climate and academic performance, even after accounting for socioeconomic status (OECD 2019b). On average, student reports of the disciplinary climate in PISA 2018 were found to be more positive in schools with mostly girls (more than 60 percent) and in gender-balanced schools than in schools in which boys made up more than 60 percent. Only two OECD countries had worse disciplinary climates in gender-balanced schools than in single-sex schools: Australia and the Dominican Republic. Unlike most countries, several with the greatest underperformance of boys tend to educate large numbers of boys and girls separately. Some of these countries start with single-sex education from the earliest grades of primary school. In the country with the biggest gender differences in learning outcomes—Saudi Arabia—from grade 1, boys are taught by men and girls are taught by women. Conversely, the Philippines also has large gender differences in learning outcomes, but gender segregation in primary school is rare. 28 | 3. What Explains Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men? Research findings are mixed on the effects of same-gender teachers (Delaney and Devereux 2021). On single-sex schooling, there is some evidence of benefits for girls and less for boys; however, the context is likely to make a significant difference. Whether the all-boys’ school is in an advanced education system with highly skilled teachers, or a developing education system with unskilled and unqualified teachers would likely impact this relationship. In countries where boys and girls are taught separately, classroom climates can differ markedly, though there is limited research to document these differences. Some harsh and harmful practices have been described in all-boys’ schools in MENA countries (Ridge 2014). Data sources such as TIMSS give some indication of the ways in which all-girls’ schools have environments that are more conducive to learning. For example, in most MENA countries (where single-sex education is common), the principals of all-girls’ secondary schools rated their school’s academic emphasis higher than did those of all-boys’ school principals (appendix A, figure 2). The teachers in most of MENA’s all-girl schools were also deemed better at explaining content and guiding students in their learning than teachers in all-boys’ schools, according to grade 8 science students (appendix A, figure 3). In addition, MENA’s all-boys’ schools have higher reports of bullying than all-girls’ schools (appendix A, figure 4). Overall, all-girls’ schools in the MENA region create an atmosphere that makes more girls feel a sense of belonging in school than boys, and this is the case across all of the countries in the region that have significant gender segregation of schooling (appendix A, figure 5). These findings align with those of an interdisciplinary project undertaken in Oman between 2011 and 2014 to study the gender gap in student performance and its implications—a study titled “The Male Dilemma.” The study found many factors contributing to boys’ lower academic performance, including that all-girls’ schools had more learning materials, greater student participation, and better student attentiveness in class (Osman et al. 2014). Female teachers in all-girls’ schools were found to provide more assistance and feedback to students, and to allow more creativity and expression of ideas than male teachers in the all-boys’ schools. As mentioned above, there is a shortage of male teachers in certain subjects in the GCC, and of men interested in going into the teaching profession. This creates the need to “import” teachers from countries in which teacher training standards may be lacking, leading to a cycle of poor-quality education in boys’ schools (Ridge 2010). Similarly, according to an unpublished USAID report (quoted in Ripley 2017), a study observing classrooms in Jordan found male teachers in all-boys’ schools reacting to students’ incorrect answers with belittling, or punishment. Complaints of teachers shouting at and beating students were greater among boys than girls. Aside from being a serious child welfare concern, the lack of classroom behavior management skills shown by male teachers in these examples is likely resulting in lost time for learning, and an atmosphere that stifles the risk taking and creativity needed for full engagement in class. The evidence on differences in MENA all-boys’ and all-girls’ schools, combined with the large gender differences in student learning outcomes found in many of the MENA countries, indicates that creating a positive environment for learning in boys’ schools is essential. It is also urgent, given that research has found boys to be more affected by school quality than girls, more harmed by bad schools, and able to gain more from strong schools (Autor et al. 2016). This finding is confirmed by a recent OECD study, which found that boys appear to be more affected by learning conditions, and more disturbed by classroom disciplinary problems and school organizational issues than girls are (box 3.2). This is a particularly interesting finding in light of the discussion above that boys are more sensitive to external environmental constraints (such as disadvantage), which has an effect on their learning. Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 29 Box 3.2 The effect of classroom climate and practices on boys' learning By combining the 2018 Progress in International Student Assessment (PISA) and the 2018 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), an OECD study used AI-powered supervised statistical learning to search for links between teacher characteristics and conditions in schools and classrooms, and student PISA performance, as well as their views on related issues. The study confirmed that teachers and schools make an important difference in student outcomes. Specifically, the study found that disciplinary problems in the classroom have more of an impact on boys’ performance than they do for girls. Boys were found to be more disturbed by classroom disciplinary problems than girls. The greater the disciplinary problems, the greater the gap in performance. Boys appear to be less able than girls to stay focused on their schoolwork when disruptions occur. Measures that indicated a potential for improving boys’ performance included greater involvement and support from parents in school-related activities, and having positive relationships with teachers and students. This points to issues of self-regulation, and focus on achievement, to which schools and parents can positively contribute. The study also found that a school culture of student assessment, teacher accountability, and appraisal can help boys to perform as well (or better) than girls in reading. More regular testing may help boys to focus and self-regulate, although an alternative (and well documented) theory of girls performing more poorly due to test anxiety and competition may explain this finding. Overall, where teachers had more opportunity to reflect on their teaching practice, and how well they are supporting low — and middle — achievers (where boys are overrepresented for reading), the better boys performed. Source: OECD 2021. Some studies have found that it is not the sex of the teacher, but the teacher’s degree of gender sensitivity and other competencies that influence their ability to engage boys and girls in learning (Page and Jha 2009). Teachers’ views on student gender and their expectations for boys and girls can play an important part in this regard. Bias against boys has been observed in scores from blind tests of written examinations (Delaney and Devereux 2021). These biases may extend to teachers treating boys and girls differently in class. Teachers’ views on gender more broadly may also impact the classroom experience for boys and girls. For example, a study in Turkish schools found that girls randomly assigned to classes taught by teachers with traditional views on gender roles performed less well (particularly with longer exposure), while boys were not affected (Alan et al. 2018). Teachers play a crucial role in creating positive classroom environments and in implementing effective teaching and learning approaches. Countries with significant problems of boys’ underperformance should look to start with the place in which teachers learn these skills—in preservice teacher education, and in-service teacher professional development. In addition, the broad social perception of teaching as a profession may have gender associations that need to be addressed; for example, Ridge (2014) has found that men in the MENA region tend to have a poor perception of the teaching profession, which may be influencing the low learning outcomes witnessed among boys’ schools. Where cases of 30 | 3. What Explains Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men? harm to children (physical and mental) are raised, teacher standards should be very clear, and teacher behavior monitored. Since the greatest differences between boys and girls are in reading, and since reading is a gateway for academic success in learning across subjects, as well as in positive engagement in society and adulthood, it warrants particular attention. An analysis of the PISA 2012 results by Brozo et al. (2014) found that students’ engagement with reading had the strongest association with reading performance in the five studied countries, including the United States, and that girls had significantly higher levels of engagement in reading than their male peers. In Finland, where boys’ underperformance in relation to girls has grown recently, the PISA 2018 results found that 63 percent of boys reported only reading if they must. Overall, across countries there is a downward trend in adolescents reading for pleasure between the 2009 and 2018 rounds of PISA. In 2018, only 24 percent of 15-year-old boys noted reading as one of their favorite hobbies compared to 44 percent of girls; while 75 percent of boys reported less than 30 minutes of reading for pleasure per day compared to 43 percent of girls (Brozo and Sulkunen 2020). Addressing the motivation to read would have long-term benefits for both boys and girls, as would encouraging innovative approaches to reading found in countries across Europe, Asia, and the United States (Brozo et al. 2014). The explanations for educational underachievement among boys and men outlined here are wide and varied, covering the fields of economics, sociology, and education. “It is a combination of socioeconomic background coupled with home and society-related factors on one side and school and teacher related issues on the other, in addition to the prevailing gender socialization and gender stereotypical notions, especially in the context of masculinity that explains the phenomenon of boys’ underperformance to a large extent” (Jha et al. 2017, 19–20). In a context where the labor market opportunities for educated youth are low, social norms that underplay academic success are prevalent, and where teaching and learning techniques are unsophisticated, male educational underachievement may often be high. Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 31 4. What Has Been Done About Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men? Most interventions to achieve gender parity in the education sector have focused on girls’ access to and participation in education. National programs exist in most low and lower-middle-income countries to ensure that girls and women have opportunities to fully benefit from the educational system. Many have been quite successful, as seen by the progress that has been made worldwide, although it is evident that much more progress is necessary. There have been far fewer interventions that address educational underachievement among boys and men. Most of these programs have been implemented in high-income countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and European countries. In low- and middle-income countries, a few programs can be found in the MENA region, as well as in Latin America and the Caribbean, some of which will be discussed here. Furthermore, few countries have adopted a national framework, or systemwide policies and programs to promote the educational achievement of boys and men (Devereux and Delaney 2021). Whereas public discussion of educational underachievement among boys and men may exist, and the press may regularly report on the phenomenon, very few countries have adopted a programmatic approach that could provide a platform for advocacy or the mobilization of resources. Having a national program or a strategic framework could help scale up programs that show promise. They also provide a pulpit for advocacy, and pressure to raise awareness of the extent of the issue within a country and to ensure that decisions are taken based on evidence and supported by data. In addition, and partly as a consequence, data on educational underachievement among boys and men is rarely detailed enough to track the impact of interventions, or to understand at more refined levels localized trends and causes. Although research on the topic has become richer, the analysis in this report shows that it is difficult to conduct international comparisons outside of those countries that have participated in international assessments. Using the three “lenses” presented in the previous chapter—labor markets, social norms, and teaching and learning—some of the more common approaches used to address educational underachievement among boys and men are summarized below. Interventions Related to Education and the Labor Market As indicated in the previous section, many aspects of the labor market are structural in nature, and thus cannot be easily affected through specific programs. Interventions that account for labor market considerations are generally of three types. First, there are programs that attempt to address the opportunity cost of education that might be contributing to decisions to underinvest in one’s education or to drop out of school. These can include scholarships, or conditional cash transfers that are reserved for children at risk of dropping out of the system. Many youth, particularly poor youth, stop their education because they can no longer afford to attend school, or because there is financial pressure to generate an income. 32 | 4. What Has Been Done About Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men? In Lebanon, with support from a World Bank project, cash transfers are provided to at-risk youth, to prevent dropping out at the secondary level (World Bank 2020). The cash transfer is for both boys and girls from extremely poor households, but the trends show that boys’ dropout rates are higher than girls’ in secondary school. Therefore, the project has a specific indicator for boys’ retention in school, although the interventions are not targeted by gender. Financing for tertiary education is a subject that surpasses the confines of this report. However, there are few programs that focus on making financial aid available specifically to men (there are programs that do so for women). Quotas are one well-known type of intervention for addressing disadvantage. There are few examples of using this approach to address male underachievement. However, since single-sex universities (or separate branches of universities) are common across the GCC countries, there have been some attempts to differentiate access requirements for students in terms of gender. For example, a 2009 study in Oman found that there was a lower selection cut-off point in the grade 12 examination required for places in some university courses for young men as compared to young women. In engineering, for example, if the same cut-off score was applied to both genders, there would have been 732 young men who were offered places, but who would not have qualified based on their grade 12 examination results, and those places would have gone to women. For science, social studies, and education, the figures would have been 578, 210, and 208, respectively (Sultanate of Oman Ministry of Education and World Bank 2013). Therefore, if quotas by gender were not imposed, the differences between men’s and women’s enrollment in tertiary education and graduation rates (lower for men than women) would have been larger than they are. Another common type of intervention is programs that provide more information to students about work opportunities after graduation. The underlying theory of this intervention is that if boys and men were more aware of the returns from schooling, they would be more willing to remain in school. These programs are usually twinned with training for relevant job opportunities. The third approach is to create special educational paths for boys at the secondary level that lead straight to the labor market. Technical and vocational education and training schools or streams within general schools are typical of this approach. Trades and specialized technical areas are provided to underachieving boys. Although this approach is often attractive to policymakers, much research has shown that when underachieving boys are streamed into trades education, they tend to lack the basic skills needed to succeed. Furthermore, these programs are often viewed as “second class” educational opportunities, and can be under-resourced, further isolating and demotivating poorly achieving students. Youth employment programs are one variation of this approach, although they usually target youth who have already quit school. Addressing Social Norms The role of social norms in affecting underachievement among boys and men is complex, as outlined in the previous section. In essence, though, there is common agreement that social norms are a powerful force that influence the degree of commitment and aspirations that are necessary in order to achieve academic success. Notions of masculinity that appear to be in direct contradiction with educational success are a case in point. However, the question here is—how amenable are negative social norms to change? Many of the efforts to modify the influence of social norms that have a negative impact on educational achievement have focused on the community, which encompasses peers and family, neighbors, and authority figures. These approaches attempt to create a counter-offensive, by supporting a social Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 33 network of key actors in the lives of boys and men that promotes norms of educational success. This usually happens through peer groups, clubs, effective parenting programs, and other ways of grouping key actors in boys’ lives. One way to combat reproducing social norms that negatively affect academic success is to focus on supporting the teacher. Because students are often taking their cues from the teachers themselves, teachers are often the best targets for interventions (Jha and Pouezevara 2016). However, counteracting negative gender stereotypes is rarely dealt with in teacher training (Kollmayer et al. 2020). Providing motivational support to students is seen as a key way to reduce gender differences in schools (Kollmayer et al. 2020). When teachers use teaching methods that promote student autonomy and individualization (such as by providing and supporting choice in tasks that fit students’ interests and abilities), gender differences in motivation decrease. Lüftenegger et al. (2012) found that gender differences in motivation decreased when teachers fostered aspects of individualization and autonomy in their classrooms. By teaching in this way, teachers are less driven by unconscious gender stereotypes, and more mindful of the individual talents and needs of their students (Kollmayer et al. 2020). A pilot study of a training program for teachers in coeducational secondary schools that required teachers to reflect on their own gender stereotypes, examine their teaching practices, and build related competencies, resulted in teachers seeing gender differences as less unchangeable, and gaining the confidence to motivate all of their students, regardless of gender (Kollmayer et al. 2020). One common response to boys’ underachievement is to identify or assign more male role models to them. These can be community members or teachers. Generally, the argument is they would be able to counter negative gender stereotypes merely by the fact that they are men. However, as discussed in the previous section, without special training and working within an environment that promotes positive masculinity, simply having a male teacher is not enough. Overall, the findings from this literature are mixed. However, Kato and Song (2018) used a similar design in a US liberal arts university to show that having a same-gender advisor does benefit undergraduates in terms of retention and GPA. One variation of this theme is the creation of single-sex schools. Single-sex schools appear to help girls more than boys, and thus the problem of boys’ underachievement is not truly addressed by them (Delaney and Devereux 2021). What appears to be more important for boys is the overall approach of the teacher, rather than his or her gender. Encouraging Boys’ Positive Engagement in Learning With many boys failing to reach minimum proficiency in key foundational subjects such as reading across the world, education systems are clearly failing to meet the needs of large groups of children. Several theories and approaches to teaching and learning that are evidence-based and scientifically grounded—including Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Aligning Levels of Instruction with Goals and the Needs of Students (ALIGNS), and Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL) (box 4.1)—are a reminder that the key to raising boys’ learning outcomes is to do what is best for all children. That is, to increase efforts to engage the child in learning experiences that are set at the right level for their goals and prior knowledge and skills, and that meet their needs and interests. These approaches place the focus of educators more on the child and less on the delivery of curriculum content, the latter of which is common in developing education systems. As such, they are useful ways of considering how to give the best possible educational opportunities to all children, not just boys or girls. However, the emphasis of these approaches on ensuring that the learning experiences are at the right level for the child, are engaging to the child, and that they allow for flexibility in how the child can access and 34 | 4. What Has Been Done About Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men? engage with the learning makes them highly relevant to a discussion of boys’ learning, particularly in countries where there is significant underachievement of boys. Box 4.1 Theories and principles for learning Much research and theory has come out of the study of education and learning over the years. However, three relatively recent theories or frameworks stand out as highly relevant to the issue of addressing boys’ underperformance, particularly in the context of less well-developed education systems. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) The concept of UDL has existed for many years, but it was first described comprehensively, and with practical classroom examples by the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) in Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning (Rose and Meyer 2002). Based on findings from brain research on how humans learn, and taking advantage of the benefits of digital technologies, the premise of UDL is to help all students reach expected standards while addressing their unique needs. This includes setting appropriate goals for every student, choosing methods and materials to optimize instructional support, and ensuring fair and accurate assessment of each student’s progress. UDL implies creating curricula that: 1. Provide multiple means of representation so that learners can acquire information and knowledge in various ways. 2. Provide multiple means of expression so that learners have alternative ways to demonstrate what they know. 3. Provide multiple means of engagement so that learners can be motivated and challenged through tapping into their own interests. Implications for boys’ underachievement The last point (regarding multiple means of engagement) is particularly relevant in terms of boys’ underachievement in, for example, reading and science. It highlights the need to pay attention to the interests of boys as an access point for engaging in reading. Aligning Levels of Instruction with Goals and the Needs of Students (ALIGNS) The Research on Improving Systems of Education (RISE) Programme is a global research endeavor that seeks to understand how education systems in developing countries can overcome the learning crisis. In 2020, RISE published an Insight Note that presented a set of principles distilled from a number of approaches that were found to improve foundational learning in developing countries. These were summarized as ALIGNS. The principles are: 1. Set clear goals for children’s learning progress in line with current learning levels. 2. Align instruction to be coherent with both current learning levels and targeted learning progress. 3. Provide effective and coherent support to teachers and instructors. Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 35 4. Tailor implementation to the opportunities and constraints of the context. Implications for boys’ underachievement The predominance of boys in the groups that are not reaching basic proficiency, particularly in reading, means that they are likely to find it difficult to engage in further learning in a school setting. ALIGNS highlights the fact that a standard curriculum for a grade delivered to struggling students will not help them move from where they are to where they should be aiming with a coherent plan for learning (that is, instructional plans that clearly lead from baselines to goals). This approach represents a shift from the approach common in countries with significant underperformance of boys, in which curriculum delivery is the focus of the actors in the education system as opposed to focusing on students’ goals in relation to their current level, with learning progress coherently managed and assessed, and assessments feeding into classroom practices. ALIGNS also draws attention to the crucial need for effective support to teachers. Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL) TaRL is a remedial education program designed to support students who are falling behind in foundational literacy and numeracy skills. TaRL, which is featured as one of the approaches used in the development of ALIGNS, was pioneered by an Indian NGO, Pratham. Randomized trials and a growing body of research point to the success of the TaRL approach when used in appropriate contexts. This approach groups children (mostly in grades 3 to 5) into groups based on their learning needs rather than their age or grade. It also provides time dedicated to the development of basic skills (rather than focusing on the curriculum); and assesses children’s progress regularly (rather than only at the end of the year). In India, two models are used: 1. A directly implemented learning camp model in which “bursts” of TaRL instruction take place for two to three hours a day for six to 10 consecutive days, amounting to 30 to 50 days, with children returning to their regular grade classes between the “bursts.” 2. A government partnership model in which children are regrouped for one or two hours per day to focus on basic skills. Implications for boys’ underachievement As found in countries such as the United States, boys are often overrepresented in remedial reading classes; grouping them together to focus on basic skills may be appropriate in some but not all cases, weighed against the evidence on gender- segregated classes. Source: CAST: http://cast.org; Hwa, Kaffenberger, and Silberstein 2020; TaRL: ttp://teachingattherightlevel.org. The finding that classroom climate tends to have a greater impact on boys than on girls (box 3.2), and that in the countries with some of the greatest underperformance of boys in relation to girls 36 | 4. What Has Been Done About Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men? (such as the GCC countries) there are markedly different school and classroom experiences for boys and girls points to the need to address issues of school and classroom climate. Most importantly, school disciplinary measures should not be detrimental to students’ well-being. Clear standards for teacher and student behavior are needed as a minimum, along with more training for teachers in positive classroom behavior management techniques. School principals have an important role to play in leading change and setting behavior expectations. Box 4.3 provides additional information on improving school and classroom climates. Whole-school strategies that encompass the school community (teachers, students, and families) are the most effective. The COVID-19 pandemic and related distance education has led to the need for closer links between families and schools; this is something that can be harnessed at this moment in time to help schools reset relationships and expectations. Box 4.3 Improving school and classroom climates Developing school and classroom climates is a key responsibility of school leaders, and often a main feature of school improvement planning processes. Teachers are principally responsible for the climate in the classroom; therefore, classroom behavior management is a common feature of good preservice teacher preparation programs. A positive environment conducive to learning is something that needs to be addressed for both boys and girls, whether in coeducational or single-sex schools. The literature on school and classroom climates spans several areas of education, from instructional methods to socioemotional skills, bullying, other kinds of school violence, disciplinary measures, and more. It is clear that zero-tolerance policies do not work, nor does seeing the problem as being in the children and addressing it through a clinical approach (i.e., pathologizing childhood). What does work is a whole-school systemic approach. In its guidance on Improving Behavior in Schools , the UK’s Education Endowment Foundation provides the following recommendations to schools based on evidence from Ofsted school inspection reports on improving behavior: 1. Know and understand your pupils and their influences. Student behavior has multiple influences, some of which the teacher can manage directly; every student should have a supportive relationship with a school staff member. 2. Teach learning behaviors alongside managing misbehavior. The need to manage misbehavior will be reduced if learning behaviors are taught. This means encouraging students to self-reflect on their own behaviors. 3. Use classroom management strategies to support good classroom behavior. This involves intensive training with teachers reflecting on their classroom management, trying new approaches and reviewing what works for them. 4. Use simple approaches as part of your regular routine. Effective strategies do not necessarily require complex pedagogical changes. Specific behavior-related praise and working with parents, for example, can support good behavior. 5. Use targeted approaches to meet the needs of individuals in your school. Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 37 Approaches most likely need to be adapted for individual needs. Teachers supporting students with high behavior needs require training in specific strategies. 6. Consistency is key. Consistency and coherence at a whole-school level are paramount. Source: López 2014; Education Endowment Foundation 2019. England’s four-year initiative on “Raising Boys’ Achievement” identified a set of strategies that work with boys but that also have the potential to raise girls’ level of achievement. As such, they are deemed not as “boy-friendly” pedagogies but as good quality teaching overall. These included: 1. Pedagogic—classroom-based approaches centered on teaching and learning 2. Individual—focused on target-setting and mentoring 3. Organizational—ways of organizing learning at the whole school level 4. Sociocultural—approaches that attempt to create an environment in which boys and girls feel able to work with, rather than against, the aims and aspirations of the school. Box 4.4 Initiatives to encourage boys' reading Several initiatives to engage boys in reading have seen good results. A few are outlined below. Premier League Reading Stars (UK) Premier League Reading Stars is a 10-session reading intervention created to increase engagement and progress levels in reading for students in grades 5 and 6, focused on those who are underachieving in reading but who have significant interest in football. The initiative was developed by the National Literacy Trust, involving teachers and authors, and is aligned to the English and Welsh curricula. These sessions, which are called “Fixtures”, can be used flexibly by schools to give students opportunities to practice their reading skills using football-related resources and texts. Research conducted by the National Literacy Trust found the program to be very effective, with 3 out of 4 children making at least 6 months’ progress in 10 weeks, and 1 in 3 children making a year’s progress or more. Almost 9 out of 10 participants said that seeing Premier League footballers read made them want to read more. The number of children in the program who read every day doubled and 7 out of 10 declared that they were now proud to be readers. Kicking and Reading (Germany) This program, aimed at lower secondary boys’ literacy, mixes soccer training with reading. Schools commit to a year of the program and contribute teachers, staff, and physical resources at no additional cost. A significant teacher professional development element of the program includes an initial one-day seminar and weekly 90-minute in-service 38 | 4. What Has Been Done About Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men? training by reading experts with peer-to-peer exchanges and materials to support their efforts, especially for struggling readers. In groups of around 15, the boys receive support focused on their needs, with reading material at three levels, and a variety of book genres (both fiction and nonfiction). The football training includes professional footballers working on football skills as well as teamwork, and excursions. The program ends with a “book slam” —a competition that features book reading, discussion, and students presenting on the books they have read, each in their own way. The Raising Boys’ Achievement Project (England) As part of a four-year “Raising Boys’ Achievement Project”, this initiative to encourage boys to become successful and satisfied readers involved making a wide variety of texts available to stimulate and sustain their interest, and to build confidence through paired reading schemes, which involves one student (the tutor, who is a more accomplished reader) supporting the other (the tutee) with their reading. This initiative was only successful for boys when students were given the space to talk and reflect on their reading and share ideas about the text. With this integrated approach to literacy, boys’ reading improved markedly. Source: https://plprimarystars.com/resources/reading-stars-pack; https://www.premierleague.com/news/61431; Brozo 2019 ; Younger et al. 2005. For some boys, formal schooling becomes very difficult, and even unsustainable. Supporting the need for creating alternatives to give boys an experience of success, Stahl and Dale (2013) noted that boys who had low cultural capital and who did not find formal schooling engaging became very proactive and confident in certain activities outside of the formal curriculum, such as music. Overall, though, the literature cautions against overly applying the stereotype that boys prefer or need kinesthetic learning, or that there is any “boy-friendly” pedagogy. Both boys and girls benefit when learning is diversified and engages them through different approaches. Overall, there are relatively few policies and initiatives that countries have used to address underachievement among boys and men, and that is particularly the case in low- and middle-income countries. The collection of initiatives and principles outlined above are a start, and they point in the right direction for improving the situation. What is noticeable is that the policies that would help raise the educational achievement of boys and men are also ones that would raise the educational achievement of girls and women, or at least would benefit them in some way. As such, recognizing the problems, and using policies that work for those at the lowest levels of achievement is a path that would lead to benefits for both boys and girls. Many of the programs discussed in this section are not necessarily targeting boys, but both boys and girls. When a school engages in challenging negative stereotypes and social norms that are in conflict with academic success, all children benefit. However, addressing educational underachievement among boys and men does deserve attention in its own right. As Delaney and Devereux (2021) report: “A Canadian program that used mentoring, tutoring, group activities, and financial incentives was found to be particularly effective at increasing academic attainment of disadvantaged high schoolers. However, girls responded more than boys, so the program increased rather than reduced gender gaps favoring girls” (Oreopoulos et al. 2017 in Delaney and Devereux 2021, 26). The point here is that what is good for girls may not always be sufficient to help boys achieve better outcomes, and so bespoke approaches may be needed for boys depending on need and context. Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 39 5. The Way Forward Male educational underachievement is a phenomenon that requires the attention of policymakers, development agencies, academics and analysts, and the public. The phenomenon is found in most countries and appears to become more extensive as a low-income country becomes richer. Because it affects socially disadvantaged boys and men, it includes an evident equity dimension. The framework provided in this report can be helpful to examine the myriad of factors known to have an influence on the educational outcomes of boys and men: (1) labor market patterns; (2) social norms; and (3) learning, teaching, and characteristics of education systems. To develop programs and policy actions to respond to the phenomena, additional research will be necessary in order to test different approaches and better understand the cross-disciplinary dynamics that contribute to educational underachievement among boys and men. Further research within countries that have pervasive underachievement among boys and men will be crucial in order to better understand the issues specific to those contexts. As a next step, three paths of potential study could be pursued on a global basis. 1. In-depth country studies. This report has emphasized the complexity of male educational underachievement where the specific characteristics of the labor market, the play of social norms, and the features of the educational system interact. Analyzing this at the country level would provide a wealth of information that could help deepen our global understanding of boys’ and men’s educational underachievement, and provide the basis for countries to design specific and targeted programs. The research on male underachievement has mostly focused on higher-income countries, whereas, as has been argued throughout this report, the phenomenon is more prevalent in middle-income countries. Consequently, case studies in countries in which educational underachievement among boys and men is prevalent, beyond high-income countries, would provide useful information to help support those countries in reducing learning poverty and improving the formation of human capital. Comparative case studies could also be useful; for example, countries from the same region that have very different outcomes (for example, the Philippines and Vietnam) could be analyzed side by side. 2. Thematic studies. There are three key thematic areas where future research should focus. The first concerns the dimension of disadvantage. Understanding how different groups of boys and men achieve in terms of income level, ethnicity, race, and geography, for example, could provide important targeted and actionable insights. The second is higher education. The reasons why men do not attend or do not complete higher education merits further analysis and discussion. Finally, more in-depth analysis of how the labor market affects choices about whether or not to continue schooling for boys and men is also needed. 3. Applied research. As governments consider possible actions—such as mentoring programs, conditional and unconditional cash transfers, teacher training programs, etc.—to address the educational underachievement of boys and men, it should be possible to implement robust research designs. Conducting impact evaluations may not be possible in every situation, but research methods that include the collection of sufficient data to determine both the strong and weak points of individual interventions would enable effective interventions to be identified. For example, in Lebanon, a World Bank project is using male dropout rates as an indicator to determine the impact of conditional cash transfers on education effectiveness. 40 | 5. The Way Forward This report would have benefited from a more extensive pool of data on trends, and details regarding male educational underachievement. National and international assessments of student learning are increasing in both number and coverage across countries; this trend will help fill the gaps needed to allow a full understanding of boys’ underperformance over time. Data on noncognitive skills, early childhood development outcomes, and tertiary education learning outcomes are lacking, and these are areas that will be important to monitor for both males and females. Data on student enrollment and completion by gender and discipline (especially in the case of tertiary education) is sporadic in many countries. In order for countries to adequately analyze and monitor educational underachievement, improvements in this type of data collection and reporting are needed. Also, in the design of interventions and programs to address educational underachievement among boys and men, adequate data collection and reporting is necessary. This is particularly important in order to target responsive instruction and educational opportunities to boys identified as being at the highest risk of educational failure and most needful of additional supports, which need not be at the detriment of support for girls also in need of special support. As a final point, it would be preferable that future research, monitoring and evaluation, reforms, and interventions take a holistic view of gender. Much research on underachievement has seen girls’/ women’s and boys’/men’s achievement in education in isolation from one another. By studying them together—examining data for both males and females in education and related aspects (labor markets, social norms, and characteristics of teaching and learning) a deeper understanding could be gained. Although this may be difficult to undertake in one global report, the approach may be helpful at regional or national levels. In many contexts, special interventions need to be continued for girls and women even though they may be overrepresented and/or outperforming boys/men. But it is important not to make it an either-or choice in terms of policy or programmatic responses. Taking a holistic view of gender will allow a balanced approach that recognizes the needs of all groups and identifies the approaches that work for boys/men, girls/women, and in some cases all children/adults. Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 41 References Akabayashi, Hideo, Kayo Nozaki, Shiho Yukawa, and Wangyang Li. 2020. “Gender Differences in Educational Outcomes and the Effect of Family Background: A Comparative Perspective from East Asia.” Chinese Journal of Sociology 6 (2): 315–335. Alan, S., S. Ertac, and I. Mumcu. 2018. “Gender Stereotypes in the Classroom and Effects on Achievement.” Review of Economics and Statistics 100 (5): 876–890. Assaad, Ragui. 2017. “Excluded Generation: The Growing Challenges of Labor Market Insertion for Egyptian Youth.” Discussion Paper Series. IZA DP No. 10970. Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics. Autor, David and Melanie Wasserman. 2013. Wayward Sons: The Emerging Gender Gap in Labor Markets and Education. Third Way Next: Washington DC. Autor, David, David Figlio, Krzysztof Karbownik, Jeffrey Roth, and Melanie Wasserman. 2020. “Males at the Tails: How Socioeconomic Status Shapes the Gender Gap.” Cambridge: NBER Working Paper No. 27196. Barker, Gary, Ravi Verma, John Crownover, Marcio Segundo, Vanessa Fonseca, Juan Manuel Contreras, Brian Heilman, and Peter Pawlak. 2012. “Boys Abund Education in The Global South: Emerging Vulnerabilities and New Opportunities for Promoting Changes in Gender Norms. Thymos Journal of Boyhood Studies. 6 (1): 137-150 Brenøe, Anne Ardila and Shelly Lundberg. 2017. “Gender Gaps in the Effects of Childhood Family Environment: Do They Persist into Adulthood?” HCEO Working Paper 2017-004. University of Chicago. Bossavie, Laurent and Ohto Kanninen. 2018. “What Explains the Gender Gap Reversal in Education? Theory and Evidence.”  Policy Research Working Paper; No. 8303.  Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.‌worldbank.‌org/‌‌handle/‌10986/29213 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO. Brozo, W. G., S. Sulkunen, G. Shiel, C. Garbe, A. Pandian, and R. Valtin. 2014. “Reading, Gender, and Engagement: Lessons from Five PISA Countries. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 57 (7): 584–593. Brozo, William G. 2019. Engaging Boys in Active Literacy. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Brozo, Bill and Sari Sulkunen. 2020. “What Should We Make of the Overall Narrowing of the Gender Gap in Reading Literacy on PISA 2018?” https://elinet.pro/blog-post-3-twg-international-assessments/. Buhl-Wiggers, Julie, Sam Jones, and Rebecca Thornton. 2021. “Boys Lagging Behind: Unpacking Gender Differences in Academic Achievement Across East Africa.” In International Journal of 2021.102382. Educational Development 83 (C). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.‌ Clark, Christina. 2009. Why Fathers Matter to Their Children’s Literacy. London : National Literacy Trust. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED513437.pdf 42 | References Cortes, Matias. 2016. “Where Have the Middle-Wage Workers Gone? A Study of Polarization Using Panel Data.” Journal of Labor Economics 34 (1): 63-105.  Delaney, Judith M. and Paul J. Devereux. 2021. “Gender and Education Achievement: Stylized Facts and Causal Evidence.” Discussion Paper Series 14074. IZA. Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics. DeRose, Laurie F., Gloria Huarcaya, and Andrés Salazar-Arango. 2018. “Father Absence and the Reverse Gender Gap in Latin America.” Journal of Family Issues 39 (13): 3508-3534 DiPrete, T.A. and J. L. Jennings. 2012. “Social and Behavior Skills and the Gender Gap in Early Education Achievement.” Social Science Research 41 (1): 1-15. DiPrete T.A. and C. Buchmann. 2012. The Rise of Women: The Growing Gender Gap in Education and What it Means for American Schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Doherty, William J., Brian J. Willoughby, and Jason L. Wilde. 2015. “Is the Gender Gap in College Enrollment Influenced by Nonmarital Birth Rates and Father Absence?” Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12157. East Asia and Pacific Regional UN Girls’ Education Initiative (EAP UNGEI). 2012. Why Are Boys Underperforming in Education? Gender Analysis of Four Asia-Pacific Countries. https:// learningportal.iiep.unesco.org/en/library/why-are-boys-under-performing-in-education-gender- analysis-of-four-asia-pacific-countries Education Endowment Foundation. 2019. “Improving Behaviour in Schools.” https:// educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/news/new-eef-report-6-recommendations-for- improving-behaviour-in-schools/ Entwisle, Doris R., Karl L. Alexander, and Linda S. Olson. 2007. “Early Schooling: The Handicap of Being Poor and Male.” Sociology of Education 80 (2): 114–138. American Sociological Association. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20452700. Freire, Germán, Carolina Díaz-Bonilla, Steven Schwartz Orellana, Jorge Soler López, and Flavia Carbonari. 2018. Afro-Descendants in Latin America: Toward a Framework of Inclusion. World Bank: Washington DC. Hammond, Alicia, Eliana Rubiano Matulevich, Kathleen Beegle, and Sai Krishna Kumaraswamy. 2020.  The Equality Equation: Advancing the Participation of Women and Girls in STEM. Washington, DC: World Bank.  Heilman, B., Barker, G., and Harrison, A. 2017. The Man Box: A Study on Being a Young Man in the US, UK, and Mexico. Washington, DC and London: Promundo-US and Unilever. Hwa, Y., M. Kaffenberger and J. Silberstein. 2020. “Aligning Levels of Instruction with Goals and the Needs of Students (ALIGNS): Varied Approaches, Common Principles.” RISE Insight Series. 2020/022. https://doi. org/10.35489/BSGRISE-RI_2020/022 Jensen, Robert. 2010. “The (Perceived) Returns to Education and the Demand for Schooling.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 125(2), p. 515 − 548. Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 43 Jha, J., and F. Kelleher. 2016. Boys Underachievement in Education: An Exploration in Selected Commonwealth Countries. Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning Jha, Jyotsna, Niveditha Menon, and Debanita Chatterjee. 2017. Boys’ Underperformance in Education: Revisiting the Issue in the Commonwealth. Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning. Jha, Jyotsna and Sarah Pouezevara. 2016. Boys’ Underachievement in Education: A Review of the Literature With a Focus on Early Years. Washington DC: USAID. Kato, Takeo and Yang Song. 2018. “An Advisor Like Me. Does Gender Matter?” Discussion Paper Series. IZA Institute of Labor Economics. King, E. M. Forthcoming. “Gender in Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Vertical Progress, Horizontal Segregation, and a Leaky Pipeline.” In The Oxford Handbook of Higher Education in Asia, edited by D. Kapur, L. Kong, and D. Malone. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kollmayer, Marlene, Marie-Therese Schultes, Marko Lüftenegger, Monika Finsterwald, Christiane Spiel, and Barbara Schober. 2020. “REFELCT—A Teacher Training Program to Promote Gender Equality in Schools.” Frontiers in Education 5:136. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2020.00136. Kwiek, Marek and Wojciech Roszka. 2021. “Gender-Based Homophily in Research: A Large-Scale Study of Man-Woman Collaboration.” Journal of Informetrics 15 (3) doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101171. Levtov, Ruti and Esther Spindler. Forthcoming. Masculinities, Education and Well-Being: Report from the Man Box Study in Jamaica in Masculinity in the Caribbean: Why Does It Matter? Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank. López, Verónica. 2014. “School Climate.” Notes: Education and Development Post-2015. UNESCO Santiago Office. Lüftenegger, M., B. Schober, R. Van de Schoot, P. Wagner, M. Finsterwald, and C. Spiel. 2012. “Lifelong Learning as a Goal—Do Autonomy and Self-Regulation in School Result in Well Prepared j.learninstruc.2011.06.001. Pupils?” Learning and Instruction 22 (1): 27–36. doi: 10.1016/‌ Lundberg, Shelly. 2017. “Father Absence and the Educational Gender Gap.” Discussion Paper Series. IZA Institute of Labor Economics. Martin, Andrew J. 2004. “School Motivation of Boys and Girls: Differences of Degree, Differences of Kind, or Both?” Australian Journal of Psychology 56 (3): 133‒146. Newton, Philip and Atharva Salvi. 2020. “How Common is Belief in the Learning Styles Neuromyth, and Does it Matter? A Pragmatic Systematic Review.” Frontiers in Education https://doi.org/10.3389/ feduc.2020.602451. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2017a. PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students’ Well-Being. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/‌9789264273856-en. OECD. 2017b. PISA 2015 Results (Volume V): Collaborative Problem Solving. Paris: OECD. https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264285521-en. 44 | References OECD. 2019a. Skills Matter: Additional Results from the Survey of Adult Skills. Paris: OECD. https://doi. org/10.1787/1f029d8f-en. OECD. 2019b. PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students’ Lives. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en. OECD 2020. PISA 2018 Results (Volume VI): Are Students Ready to Thrive in an Interconnected World? Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/d5f68679-en. OECD. 2021. Positive, High-Achieving Students?: What Schools and Teachers Can Do. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/3b9551db-en. Osman, Mohamed E., Thuwayba A. Al Barwani, Abdo M. Al Mekhlafi, and Mustafa B. Ab Sheiba. 2014. “Gender Gap in Students Performance: Implications on the Labor Market and the Fabric of Society.” Sultan Qaboos University and the Research Council of Oman. Page, E. and J. Jha. 2009. Exploring the Bias: Gender and Stereotyping in Secondary Schools. London: Commonwealth Secretariat. Ridge, Natasha. 2009. “The Hidden Gender Gap in Education in the UAE.” Dubai School of Government Policy Brief 12, 1–7. Ridge, Natasha. 2010. “Teacher Quality, Gender and Nationality in the United Arab Emirates: A Crisis for Boys.” Dubai School of Government Working Paper No. 10-06. Ridge, Natasha. 2014. Education and the Reverse Gender Divide in the Gulf States. New York: Teachers College Press. Ridge, Natasha, S. Jeon, S. Shami, and B. J. Chung. 2018. “The Role and Impact of Arab Fathers.” Hawwa 16 (1–3): 333–361. Ripley, Amanda. 2017. “Boys Are Not Defective.” The Atlantic, September 21. https://www.theatlantic. com/education/archive/2017/09/boys-are-not-defective/540204/ Rose, David and Anne Meyer. 2002. Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Schwanenflugel, Paula J. and Nancy Flanagan Knapp. 2019. “A Father’s Role(s) in Reading: Why Fathers Matter to Reading Development.” Psychology Today (blog), June 16, 2019. https://www. psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/reading-minds/201906/fathers-roles-in-reading Stahl, Garth and Pete Dale. 2013. “Success on the Decks: Working-Class Boys, Education and Turning the Tables on Perceptions of Failure.” Gender and Education 25 (3): 357‒372. DOI: 10.1080/09540253.2012.756856 Sultanate of Oman Ministry of Education and World Bank. 2013. Education in Oman: The Drive for Quality. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/‌curated/ en/280091468098656732/Main-report. Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 45 Tomlinson, Carol Ann and Tonya R. Moon. 2013. Assessment and Student Success in a Differentiated Classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. World Bank. 2018a. The Human Capital Project. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents. worldbank.org/curated/en/363661540826242921/The-Human-Capital-Project. World Bank. 2018b. “Gender Dimensions of Educational Access and Achievement in Sri Lanka.” Discussion Paper Series, 90. Washington DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2019. Expectations and Aspirations: A New Framework for Education in the Middle East and North Africa. Safaa El Tayeb El-Kogali and Caroline Krafft, eds. The World Bank Group: Washington DC. World Bank. 2020. Project Appraisal Document: Lebanon Emergency Crisis and COVID-19 Response: Social Safety Net Project. World Bank. 2021. The Human Capital Index 2020 Update: Human Capital in the Time of COVID-19. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1552-2. Younger, Mike and Molly Warrington. 2005. “Raising Boys’ Achievement.” Research Report RR636. UK Department for Education and Skills. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5400/1/RR636.pdf Younger, Michael Robert and Molly Warrington. 2006. “Would Harry and Hermione Have Done Better in Single-Sex Classes? A Review of Single Sex Teaching in Coeducational Secondary Schools in the United Kingdom.” American Educational Research Journal 43 (4): 579–620. 46 | Appendix A. Additional Tables and Figures Appendix A: Additional Tables and Figures Appendix table 1. Mean performance (scale score) in the Latin American Laboratory for Assessment of the Quality of Education (LLECE): Regional Comparative and Explanatory Study, by gender, 2013 Mathematics Reading Science 3rd grade 6th grade 3rd grade 6th grade 6th grade Female Male M-F Female Male M-F Female Male M-F Female Male M-F Female Male M-F Argentina 536 530 -6 526 534 8 518 507 -11 517 500 -18 505 497 -8 Brazil 542 537 -5 515 525 10 526 513 -13 529 518 -12 501 497 -4 Chile 582 583 1 578 583 6 576 567 -10 564 551 -13 558 544 -13 Colombia 520 518 -2 506 523 17 526 512 -14 529 523 -7 524 529 4 Costa Rica 555 560 4 530 540 10 547 539 -8 548 544 -4 543 550 8 Cuba .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Dominican 450 446 -4 434 439 5 462 445 -17 461 450 -11 448 440 -8 Republic Ecuador 523 526 3 507 518 11 508 509 1 493 489 -3 508 512 4 El Salvador .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Guatemala 498 503 6 478 498 20 494 496 2 488 490 2 484 491 7 Honduras 508 507 -2 475 485 10 498 495 -3 483 475 -8 474 470 -5 Mexico 551 548 -3 562 569 7 525 514 -11 532 526 -6 530 529 -2 Nicaragua 481 489 8 458 466 8 478 478 -1 485 472 -13 472 473 1 Panama 498 491 -7 463 460 -2 494 486 -8 489 475 -14 481 469 -13 Paraguay 486 490 4 454 457 3 487 475 -11 475 463 -12 460 450 -10 Peru 528 537 8 515 540 25 522 521 0 506 505 0 499 502 3 Uruguay 557 545 -12 563 571 8 532 517 -14 539 525 -14 518 515 -3 Source: LLECE data accessed from the World Bank EdStats database. Appendix table 2. Mean performance (scale score) in the Southern and Eastern African Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ), by gender, grade 6, 2007 Mathematics Reading Female Male M-F Female Male M-F Botswana 524 518 -6 549 520 -30 Eswatini 536 546 9 554 545 -8 Kenya 546 568 22 542 544 2 Lesotho 477 477 0 472 464 -8 Malawi 441 453 12 429 438 10 Mauritius 631 616 -15 589 559 -30 Mozambique 479 488 10 473 478 5 Namibia 470 472 2 504 490 -14 Seychelles 567 535 -32 607 544 -63 South Africa 498 491 -7 506 484 -23 Tanzania 538 569 31 570 586 16 Uganda 477 487 10 476 482 6 Zambia 429 441 12 432 437 6 Zimbabwe 519 521 2 513 502 -11 Source: SACMEQ data accessed from the World Bank EdStats database. Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 47 Appendix table 3. Mean performance (scale score) in the Programme for the Analysis of Education Systems (PASEC), by gender, 2014 2nd grade 6th grade Language Mathematics Reading Mathematics Female Male M-F Female Male M-F Female Male M-F Female Male M-F Benin 460 457 -2 457 452 -5 520 527 7 500 494 -6 Burkina Faso 518 509 -9 502 510 9 530 534 4 533 546 13 Burundi 630 625 -5 609 601 -9 532 520 -12 612 579 -33 Cameroon 499 506 7 493 512 19 527 509 -18 491 489 -2 Chad 473 487 15 467 514 47 421 439 18 437 459 22 Congo, Rep. 525 520 -5 539 543 4 508 498 -10 474 489 15 Cote d'Ivoire 478 489 11 452 479 26 520 515 -5 468 482 14 Niger 433 437 4 428 445 18 400 406 6 402 409 7 Senegal 498 506 8 514 529 15 546 551 4 538 557 19 Togo 474 474 0 470 478 8 500 495 -6 516 524 8 Source: PASEC data accessed from the World Bank EdStats database. 48 | Appendix A. Additional Tables and Figures Appendix table 4. Percentage of grade 2 and 3 students who reached minimum proficiency in reading, by gender, Early Grade Reading Assessments (EGRA), 2010 — 2014 Boys Girls Boys-Girls Boys Girls Boys-Girls Grade 2 Grade 3 Ethiopia (2014) Egypt (2013) Afaan Oromo 6 3 3 Arabic 5 5 0 Af Somali 16 13 3 Jordan (2014) Hadiyyisa 6 3 3 Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) 11 20 -9 Sidamu Afoo 2 0 2 Philippines (2013/14) Tigrinya 1 0 1 Filipino 26 48 -22 Wolayttatto 9 7 2 English 40 58 -18 Ghana (2013) Vanuatu (2010) Ghanaian language 3 2 1 19 27 -8 English 6 7 -1 Jordan (2014) Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) 1 4 -3 Liberia (2013) English 6 3 3 Malawi (2012) Chichewa 0 0 0 Pakistan (2013) Urdu 16 25 -9 Sindhi 26 22 4 Philippines (2013/14) Ilokano 27 46 -19 Hiligaynon 29 40 -11 Cebuano 41 62 -21 Maguindinaoan 15 30 -15 Tanzania (2013) Kiswahili 4 6 -2 Vanuatu (2010) 3 7 -4 West Bank (2014) Arabic with diacritics 15 22 -7 Arabic without diacritics 33 21 12 Zambia (2014) 1 1 0 Note: This indicator monitors SDG 4.1.1a, which can be monitored using various measures including EGRA. These results represent the percentage of students reaching draft reading proficiency standards developed with the ministries of education. Countries are solely responsible for reporting on this indicator to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Source: USAID Early Grade Reading Barometer https://earlygradereadingbarometer.org/ Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men | 49 Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men Appendix figure 1. Percentage of students below the lower international benchmark and at or above the high international benchmark (boys - girls), PIRLS 2016 and TIMSS Appendix figure 1. Percentage of students below the lower international benchmark and at or above 2019 the high international benchmark (boys - girls), PIRLS 2016 and TIMSS 2019 Grade 44 A. A. Grade Reading, Reading,PIRLS 2016 PIRLS 2016 66 50 | Appendix A. Additional Tables and Figures Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men B. B. Grade Grade Mathematics, 44 TIMSS Mathematics, 2019 2019 TIMSS 67 Educational Underachievement Educational Among Underachievement Boys Boys Among and Men and Men | 51 C. Grade 4 Science, TIMSS 2019 C. Grade 4 Science, TIMSS 2019 68 52 | Appendix A. Additional Tables and Figures Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men D. Grade 8 Mathematics, TIMSS 2019 D. Grade 8 Mathematics, TIMSS 2019 69 Educational Underachievement Educational Among Underachievement BoysBoys Among and Men and Men | 53 E. Grade 8 Science, TIMSS 2019 E. Grade 8 Science, TIMSS 2019 Source: Authors’ analysis based on IEA PIRLS 2016 and TIMSS 2019 databases. Source: Authors’ analysis based on IEA PIRLS 2016 and TIMSS 2019 databases. 70 Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men 54 | Appendix A. Additional Tables and Figures Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men Appendix figure 2. Academic emphasis of school, all-boys' and all-girls' schools, grade 8, TIMSS 2019 views 2. Academic emphasis of school, all-boys' and all-girls' schools, grade Principals’figure Appendix Appendix figure 8, TIMSS 2019 2. Academic emphasis of school, all-boys' and all-girls' schools, grade 8, TIMSS 2019 views Principals’views Principals’ Source: Based on data from the IEA TIMSS 2019 International Database. The academic emphasis Source. scaleBased on data includes from the IEA TIMSS indicators such2019 International Database. as teachers’ The academic expectations emphasis scale for student includes indicators achievement, such as ability to teachers’ teachers’ expectations for student achievement, teachers’ ability to inspire students, and students’ respect for classmates who excel in inspire Source: school, students, Based onand for example. datastudents’ from the respect IEA TIMSS for classmates who excel in 2019 International school, for Database. Theexample. academic emphasis Appendix scale figure includes 3. Clarity indicators such instruction of as teachers’ in science lessons, expectations all-boys' for student and all-girls' achievement, schools, teachers’ grade to 8, ability Appendix TIMSS figure 2019 3. Clarity of instruction in science lessons, all-boys' and inspire students, and students’ respect for classmates who excel in school, for example. all-girls' Students’ grade schools, Appendix figure8, Views Clarity 2019 3. TIMSS of instruction in science lessons, all-boys' and all-girls' schools, grade 8, TIMSS 2019 Students’ Views Source: Source. Based Based on from on data datathe from the IEA IEA TIMSS TIMSS 2019 2019Database. International International Database. Source: Based on data from the IEA TIMSS 2019 International Database. 71 Educational Underachievement Among Boys and Men Educational Educational Underachievement Underachievement Among Among BoysBoys and Men and Men | 55 Appendix figure 4. Frequency of student bullying, all-boys' and all-girls' schools, grade 8, TIMSS 2019 Appendix figure Appendix figure4. Frequency 4. Frequency student of of bullying, student all-boys' bullying, and and all-boys' all-girls' schools, all-girls' grade grade schools, 8, TIMSS Bullying 2019 8, scale: TIMSS 2019 higher = less bullying (students’ view) scale: higher Bullying scale: higher == less lessbullying bullying(students’ view) (students’ view) Source: Based on data from the IEA TIMSS 2019 International Database. Source. Source: Based on data Based from from on data the IEA TIMSS the IEA2019 International TIMSS Database. 2019 International Database. Appendix figure 5. Students' sense of belonging in school, all-boys' and all-girls' Appendix figure 5. Students' sense of belonging in school, all-boys' and all-girls' schools, grade 8, schools, grade 8, TIMSS 2019 TIMSS Appendix 2019 figure 5. Students' sense of belonging in school, all-boys' and all-girls' schools, grade 8, Sense of belonging scale: higher = greater sense of belonging Sense of belonging TIMSS 2019 scale: higher = greater sense of belonging Sense of belonging scale: higher = greater sense of belonging Source. Based on data from the IEA TIMSS 2019 International Database. Source: Based on data from the IEA TIMSS 2019 International Database. Source: Based on data from the IEA TIMSS 2019 International Database. 72 72