A nation's choices always have consequences

In the current issue of The Atlantic magazine is an article on why boys should start school a year later than girls, and the statistics are staggering.

Starting boys a year later than schools suggest is, of course, something that doesn't happen often, mostly because most parents can't afford to pay for an additional year of childcare. Now if that doesn't convince you that a solid percentage of what a school does is simply childcare, subsidized by the state, I'm not sure what could.

It's a longish article, but the longer it went on and the more evidence it shared, the clearer the truth became. Our schools are structured to basically guarantee problems, particularly for boys. I don't know the biology of it all but it is clear that girls mature earlier than boys, and that school requires that added maturity for academic success.

Some of it may be due to the overwhelming numbers of female teachers, particularly in elementary school, but there is also the fact that boys eventually can "catch up" to their female peers... though not until late in high school, if then.

We don't really need studies to teach us this truth, since every parent and grandparent has seen the evidence. Yes, there are exceptions, but the overwhelming evidence is clear.

I honestly don't know if this problem is getting worse or why that might be, but there are now three college females for every two male college students. There is so much more to be done in achieving better balance for women in the workplace and academia and in society generally, but there is a clear discrepancy in K-12 schools and many behavioral and achievement challenges that grow from that discrepancy.

A 2021 study contained this: "American girls are 14 percentage points more likely than boys to be “school ready” at age 5, controlling for parental characteristics. That’s a bigger gap than the one between rich and poor children, or Black and white children, or those who attend preschool and those who do not. The gap is mostly driven by social and emotional factors, or what social scientists label “noncognitive skills,” rather than academic ones."

Bottom line: boys are not nearly as "ready" to begin formal schooling as girls. 

And I suspect that many of the nation's problems with young men -- and there are so many -- involves a lack of maturity and (maybe) years of frustration at being "not good enough" in school.

So it should be easy to fix this, right? We can observe the basic problem, and the basic solution is to "red shirt" most boys for a year. Will this happen? Not a chance.

The U.S. prefers "freedom" for parents of young children, putting all financial responsibilities on them to find childcare, provide support and "extra" social experiences... all while those young parents are near the beginning of their careers and have little time and money to effectively support those kids.

Just as our country chooses to continue our culture of violence by refusing to limit guns in any meaningful way, we also choose to produce increasingly angry and frustrated young men.

Of course, providing a stronger start for boys in school wouldn't guarantee that the nation would soon see "better" young men. And there are plenty of terrific young males, regardless of how their education began (and continued). 

We could, however, increase the odds of success.