MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 1 Male Students in Crisis: How Teachers are Experiencing and Addressing the Male Academic Performance Gap by Korie Bellamy A final presentation submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with an emphasis in CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah August 29, 2025 Approved Dustin M. Grote, Ph.D. Louise Moulding, Ph.D. Sara Gailey, Ph.D. MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 2 Table of Contents Male Students in Crisis: How Teachers are Experiencing and Addressing the Male Academic Performance Gap ............................................................................................................................ 3 Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 4 Achievement Gap Defined .......................................................................................................... 5 Scope of the Male Student Achievement Gap ............................................................................ 5 Understanding Differences in Academic Achievement and Learning by Birth Sex .................. 7 Biological Factors ................................................................................................................... 7 Sociological Factors ................................................................................................................ 9 Implication of Male Student Achievement Gaps for Educators ............................................... 11 Methods......................................................................................................................................... 13 PHASE I (P1) - Quantitative..................................................................................................... 14 Data Collection Procedures................................................................................................... 14 Participants ............................................................................................................................ 15 Table X...................................................................................................................................... 16 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 17 Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 17 PHASE 2 (P2) – Qualitative ..................................................................................................... 17 Participants ............................................................................................................................ 17 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................... 18 Interview Questions .............................................................................................................. 19 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 20 Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 20 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 20 Quantitative Findings ................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Table 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 22 2024 Utah School District Male/Female Graduation Gap ........................................................ 22 Qualitative Findings .................................................................................................................. 23 Male Apathy and Disengagement ......................................................................................... 24 Female Persistence and Organizational Strength .................................................................. 24 MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 3 Sociocultural Barriers to Male Engagement ......................................................................... 25 Instructional Adaptations ...................................................................................................... 26 Resistance to Gender-Specific Pedagogy ............................................................................. 28 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 28 Implications................................................................................................................................... 31 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 32 References ..................................................................................................................................... 34 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 42 Open Ended Interview Questions ............................................................................................. 42 Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 43 Consent Form ............................................................................................................................ 43 IRB STUDY # AY22-23-314 ....................................................................................................... 43 WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY .................................................................................................. 43 INFORMED CONSENT .............................................................................................................. 43 MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 4 Male Students in Crisis: How Teachers are Experiencing and Addressing the Male Academic Performance Gap Across the pre-kindergarten through the postsecondary education (P-20) system in the United States, male students lag behind their female counterparts in almost every facet of reported educational outcomes (Brueningsen, 2021; Reeves, 2022; Reeves et al., 2021). Perhaps the starkest differences are seen at the university level with males lagging behind females by an average of 15 percent in college matriculation and 14 percentage points in 4-year graduation rates, as of 2019 (Reeves & Smith, 2021). These trends have only worsened since the 2020 pandemic (Reeves, 2022). However, the sex disparities in college performance observed at the collegiate level reflect male/female gaps that appear far earlier in the educational process. Research suggests that inequality in academic performance by sex begins even before the first day of class. According to a study conducted by the Brookings Institute in 2012 (Isaacs, 2012), girls in the United States are 14 percent more prepared to enter school at age five than boys. This seems to be corroborated by the fact that once school commences, boys concede ground to their female classmates almost immediately in core areas such as reading fluency (NAEP, 2020). What begins as a 6% reading disadvantage in fourth grade quickly widens to an 11% gap by the end of eighth grade (Reeves, 2022). By high school, a clear advantage has been established for female students in academic performance and outcomes. By the time of high school graduation, one in five boys does not graduate high school compared to one in ten girls (Reeves, 2022). Given the extent and persistence of these gaps in academic performance by biological sex, surprising.ly little attention has been given to this issue in research studies. Instead, recent research and policies have focused more on the gaps in outcomes by race/ethnicity and MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 5 socioeconomic status rather than differences between sexes (Murnane, 2013; Ricciardi & Winsler, 2021). Consequently, the performance gap and overall deficiencies in the achievement of today’s male students have not resulted in any concentrated interventions or policies within or outside of the classroom. To better understand and address the lagging academic performance of male students across the P-20 education system, this study explores how teachers have been experiencing these disparities in academic performance by sex and examines if and how they have addressed the issue within their individual classrooms. Specifically, using an explanatory sequential mixedmethods approach, this study investigated 1) the extent to which teachers have experienced biological sex-based gaps in learning in their classrooms and 2) what efforts that they have made to address sex-based differences that may impact differentiated outcomes and 3) how those efforts may contribute to the male student gap in high school graduation rates in the state of Utah. The research questions that guided this study are the following: 1. How does academic performance differ by sex across public schools in Utah? 2. How, and to what extent, have teachers experienced differences in academic performance based on a student's biological sex in their classrooms? 3. How, and to what extent do teaching practices vary based on a high school’s graduation rate by sex? Literature Review This literature review will begin by defining achievement gaps. It will then look at some of the research surrounding the current achievement gap and examine the scope of the issue in more detail from pre-kindergarten to postgraduate levels of education. Next, I summarize prior research that has investigated factors that may contribute to the academic performance gap for MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 6 male students. Finally, I examine some proposed solutions found in previous literature that teachers may adopt to address the issue in classrooms. Achievement Gap Defined Achievement gaps are widely used to describe differences or disparities in academic performance between subgroups of students based on an array of identities, social, and economic characteristics (Hung et al., 2019). To identify and address gaps between subgroups, the U.S. Department of Education requires states to track and report student progress at a national level, within these subgroups, through a variety of success indicators. These indicators include grades, standardized test scores, student drop-out rates, graduation rates, college admittance, and college graduation rates (Ansell, 2011). Performance on these metrics is then disaggregated by demographic subgroups that include race/ethnicity, students’ and their families’ socioeconomic status (SES), children who are disabled, and English language learners, and birth sex (Reeves et al., 2021). Tracking performance outcomes for these groups has allowed scholars and policymakers to focus efforts on narrowing indicated gaps to provide more equitable outcomes for marginalized groups of students (Ansell, 2011; Chamber, 2009; Reeves et al., 2021). Scope of the Male Student Achievement Gap In practically every measure of academic success from pre-kindergarten (pre-k) to postgraduate education, male students are underperforming their female classmates (Reeves, 2022). What begins as small, but notable differences in pre-k, compounds each year culminating in vast gaps in college enrollment and completion (Reeves & Smith, 2021). Beginning as early as 3 years old, the average girl is 16% more likely than the average boy to exhibit behaviors conducive to learning in a formal setting (Alwaely et al., 2020; Isaacs, 2012), such as the ability to self-regulate, stay still, pay attention, and follow directions (Schore, 2017). MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 7 Then, gaps in learning performance manifest for boys in elementary education in core areas such as reading fluency (NAEP, 2020). In fact, by third grade, girls reading and writing scores surpass boys by roughly half a grade level in almost every U.S. school district regardless of the racial or socioeconomic makeup of the district (Loveless, 2015; Crawford, 2018). Many experts agree that third-grade reading levels may be the single most important predictor of future academic success and have linked third-grade reading outcomes to both high school graduation and college attendance rates (Lesnick et al., 2010). Reading achievement data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that a 6% reading disadvantage for male students in third-grade grows to an 11% gap by the end of eighth grade (NAEP, 2020; Reeves, 2022). By the end of 8th grade, what was a half-a-year gap in reading and writing outcomes has increased to almost a full grade difference (Crawford, 2018). Discrepancies in academic performance become even more pronounced by high school, as indicated by multiple metrics (Fortin et al., 2015; Reeves, 2022). For example, in both average high school GPA as well as average ACT scores, girls outperform boys (Buddin, 2014; Fortin et al., 2015; Nam, 2022; Reeves, 2021). When looking at the top ten and bottom ten percent of high school GPA, girls are twice as likely to be among the top ten percent and boys twice as likely to be among the bottom ten percent (Fortin et al., 2015; Reeves, 2022). Unsurprisingly, studies have shown a link between high school GPA and ACT test scores on college completion (Allensworth & Clark, 2020). Perhaps it also explains why, across the U.S., approximately one in five boys do not complete high school on time compared to one in ten girls (Reeves et al., 2021). By college, males trail females in both college enrollment and graduation and do so in record numbers (Belkin, 2021). According to the National Clearinghouse Research Center, at the end of 2022, approximately 60% of all enrolled college students were women (Bryant, 2022). MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 8 Although overall college enrollment has been declining since 2012, male student enrollment has decreased at a rate of seven times that of their female counterparts (Reeves & Smith, 2021). This gap in college enrollment only widens when examining college graduation rates (Belkin, 2021; Parker, 2021). For students attending four-year universities, after six years, 65% of females will have obtained a diploma compared to 59% of males (Belkin, 2021; Reeves & Smith, 2021). This gap is even more exaggerated (14%) when looking at younger cohorts between the ages of 25 and 34 (Parker, 2021; Reeves & Smith, 2021). The implications of such a gap in degree attainment are concerning, as college completion statistics correlate with future earnings and success (Bhutta et al., 2020; Tamborini et al., 2015). Understanding Differences in Academic Achievement and Learning by Birth Sex An often-overlooked factor in academic outcomes is the distinctions that exist between male and female learners (Reeves et al., 2021). Some researchers believe that biological and sociological sex differences may play a critical role in understanding the complexities of the male/female gap in learning (Bonomo, 2010; Gurian & Stevens, 2004; Kommer, 2006; Xin et al, 2019). However, the extent to which these sex differences directly affect learning outcomes is a topic of intense debate today (DeCasien et al., 2022). Biological Factors While it is undisputed that anatomical differences exist between sexes (Gurian & Stevens, 2004; Kommer, 2006; Lenroot & Giedd, 2010; Xin et al., 2019), the full extent of how these differences affect learning is still mostly reliant on interpretation (Goldman, 2017). When looking at areas of the brain that play critical roles in learning, researchers who have used PET scans and MRI technology have found both biological and functional differences between sexes (Gurian & Stevens, 2004). For example, one study found the differences in the corpus callosum, MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 9 the system of nerves that connect the right and left hemispheres of the brain, increased the speed at which females processed information (Kommer, 2006). A more recent study discovered similar findings using 3D Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) imaging, which yielded further evidence that sex differences exist throughout the entire brain, 28 percent more than was previously thought (Xin et al., 2019). Many researchers believe these structural variations may have a substantial influence on cognitive functions such as the way individuals encode memory, process information, and regulate emotions (Bonomo, 2010; Cosgrove et al., 2007; Xin et al., 2019). Other research has found a connection between brain physiology and sex-specific neurological disorders (Goldman, 2017; Xin et al., 2019). One other facet of biological sex differences which has received less attention, is the variance in brain developmental timelines by sex (Reeves, 2022), prompting a question of biological sex variation being less a matter of how the male and female brain matures, but when it matures (Lenroot & Giedd, 2010; Reeves, 2022). Another group of research has focused on how biological differences in cognitive development affect learning outcomes. Two studies found that an average 3-year-old girl is 16% more likely than the average 3-year-old boy to demonstrate behaviors conducive to formal learning (Alwaely et al., 2020; Isaacs, 2012). Some scholars attribute this finding to an accelerated socio-emotional development in the female brain that seems to enhance learning preparedness (Schore, 2017). Researchers believe that socio-emotional maturity in girls may greatly affect skills such as self-regulation, staying still, adhering to instructions, and paying attention for extended periods of time (AAUW, 2020; Owens, 2016; Xin et al., 2019), each of which was determined to benefit traditional learning in pre-kindergarten and elementary settings. Another study (Alwaely et al., 2020) looked at the social-emotional development in children 3 to 4 years of age and found that boys showed a significant deviation in social-emotional maturation MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 10 from their female counterparts. These socio-emotional delays in preschool, may consequently, correlate to future “academic struggles, suboptimal social interactions, and ongoing behavioral problems” (Devona, 2021) in a child’s educational outcomes. Sociological Factors While numerous sociological factors may contribute to the decline in male student achievement, a growing number of studies have found that the educational environment itself has become increasingly unfriendly to boys (Brueningsen, 2021; Guo, 2016; Pomeroy, 2023; Sax, 2021), a result of several key factors such as a shift in culture, changes in teaching methodology and curriculum, unconscious gender bias, and social attitudes and peer pressure which may discourage males from prioritizing their education (Jackson & Hilliard, 2013; Nolan, 2015; Nolan, 2016; Pomeroy, 2023). Consequently, understanding the interplay between these sociological factors and learning for male students may be crucial in developing effective strategies to address the disparity seen in male student achievement (Jackson & Hilliard, 2013; Sax, 2021). Over the past few decades, educational institutions worldwide, and particularly within the United States, have seen a dramatic shift in culture and teaching methodology (Stephens, 2021). Historically, the education system was designed for male students, with teaching practices that catered to the strengths and preferences that, in general, are preferred by male students, such as competitions, independent work, and applied thinking (Davis, 2009). However, with the shift toward more collaborative work and sex-neutral subject matter, some researchers have observed a decrease in engagement and motivation specifically among the male student population (Davis, 2009). Another study (Bolle et al., 2015) gathered information from more than 5,000 participants and found that the current school environment is more suited to the average female observed MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 11 learning behaviors, making it typically simpler for girls to achieve higher grades and better test scores. Conversely, one study found that when e-learning classes were designed with male/female specific subject matter and learning styles, engagement and motivation increased, resulting in greater learning outcomes for both sexes (Davis, 2009). This study also demonstrated that even though gender stereotypes are often demonized in the current culture of gender neutrality, they can have a positive effect when paired with personalized learning options (Davis, 2009). Another group of research has investigated unconscious gender bias against male students, particularly in disciplinary actions and grading, and may be another contributing factor to the sex achievement gap (Brueningsen, 2021). According to a 2016 American Sociological Association survey (Owens, 2016), the way teachers react to boys' misbehavior has a big impact on how they perform in school years later. Based on the study, boys during elementary school were considerably more likely to experience negative teacher-student interactions when compared to girls. These findings correlated to much higher rates of grade repetition and lower reported academic expectations in high school (Owens, 2016). However, this bias extends beyond disciplinary practices and has also been observed when looking at grading imbalances (Pomeroy, 2023). In fact, a study looking at grades from more than 39,000 10th-grade students found that even if students had similar levels of “subject-specific competence” based on standardized test scores, female students received better grades than their male counterparts (Lievore & Triventi, 2022). Furthermore, this study found that unconscious bias was evident across various types of schools and was not dependent on particular teacher characteristics, suggesting that teachers culturally favor girls when it comes to discipline and grading (Morrison, 2022; Pomeroy, 2023). MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 12 Finally, some prior research has investigated the role that gender-based social expectations and peer pressure may discourage male students from prioritizing educational achievement (Bursztyn et al., 2018; Warrington et al., 2013; Workman & Heyder, 2020). For example, one study found that male students are more likely than female students to face social repercussions from their peers for “trying hard” in school (Workman & Heyder, 2020). While this anti-intellectual attitude is more prevalent among schools with higher racial diversity and lower socioeconomic status, a few studies found that boys, in general, were more likely to experience ridicule for performing well in school (Bursztyn et al., 2018; Warrington et al., 2013). Many researchers believe the pressure to conform to this stereotypical masculine mindset has led to the devaluation of academic success and a reluctance for male students to actively engage in other learning opportunities (Bursztyn et al., 2018; Workman & Heyder, 2020). Implication of Male Student Achievement Gaps for Educators Addressing the male achievement gap, while still supporting equity for all students, requires careful consideration when designing classroom curricula (Bonomo, 2010; StevensSmith, 2020). A number of prior studies have shown that instructional adaptations in classrooms based on sex differences can have a tangible effect on academic performance and engagement and should be pursued to create a sex-equitable environment for all students (Angeli & Valanides, 2020; Bonomo, 2010; Davis, 2009; Gurian & Stevens, 2004; Kerri, 2002; Kommer, 2006; Sax, 2006). Through differentiated curriculum, both biological and sociologically constructed differences between sexes can adequately be addressed within the classroom (Stevens-Smith, 2020). Furthermore, educators who understand the specific differences and individual needs of each sex will be better equipped to diversify their teaching methodology and accommodate the preferred learning modalities of their students (Jackson & Hilliard, 2013). MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 13 For instance, studies have shown that girls significantly outperform boys in reading and writing proficiency across all grade levels (Berninger et al., 2008; Rielly et al., 2019). When looking at how to address this achievement gap, one study found that there was a statistically significant relationship between the scaffolding techniques used to teach computational thinking and the learning outcomes for kindergarten through 6th grade across sexes (Angeli & Valenides, 2020). The results indicated that boys gained more from the manipulative, individualistic, spatially-focused, and tactile activities, while girls benefited the most from collaborative activities with a writing element (Angeli & Valenides, 2020). Similar links between preference and performance by sex were found when looking at educational game designs, as boys gravitated toward individual games with a competition element while girls overwhelmingly preferred cooperative games with social interactions (Mozelius & Humble, 2023). Perhaps the negative social attitudes toward learning for male students could be addressed by including a more personalized curriculum aimed at increasing engagement and motivation while considering sex preferences. A plethora of research shows that when students find the content interesting and personally relevant, engagement, the desire to learn, and academic outcomes increase (Davis, 2009; Mozelius & Humble; 2023). For example, a study designed to increase academic outcomes and engagement in an online university environment offered students the option to take a math class based on baseball statistics (Davis, 2009). While not exclusive to boys, the content and methodology were geared towards reported male learning strengths and preferences; by personalizing learning with sex in mind, they were able to increase relevance and engagement for those taking the class (Davis, 2009). Through differentiated curriculum options, both biological and sociological differences between sexes can adequately be addressed within the classroom (Stevens-Smith, 2020). MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 14 Methods This study utilized a sequential explanatory mixed methods design to determine the extent to which Utah is experiencing the reported nationwide gap in high school graduation rates between the biological sexes and to investigate how educators are experiencing and responding to male underachievement in their classrooms. This method was chosen to provide both a greater statistical understanding of the male/female graduation gap and to give a contextualized interpretation of educators’ perceptions and instructional responses in the districts with the highest and lowest sex-based disparities. The quantitative phase began with an analysis of publicly available high school graduation data separated by biological sex from the Utah State Board of Education. Graduation rates from all qualifying Utah school districts were compared to confirm whether the gap aligned with the national data, and to identify patterns in gender disparities. From this dataset, individual schools within the districts with the highest and lowest sex-based gaps were selected for deeper qualitative exploration. This quantitative phase established the baseline for school-level exploration of differences in male/female academic performance. Following this, the qualitative phase consisted of semi-structured, open-ended interviews with teachers from select high schools within the purposefully sampled districts described above. The interviews were designed to explore teachers’ perceptions of sex-based academic disparities, their awareness of the graduation gap, and whether any instructional or curricular adaptations had been implemented to support underperforming male students. Thematic analysis was used to identify common patterns and emergent themes Although limited in scope, this study provides an important initial exploration into teacher experiences related to the male/female graduation gap found in Utah schools. The use of MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 15 a mixed methods approach allowed for cross-sectional data analysis of the connection between graduation outcomes and lived classroom experience. Quantitative findings guided the purposive sampling in the qualitative phase to help contextualize and interpret the numerical trends. PHASE I (P1) - Quantitative Data Collection Procedures Graduation data was obtained from the Utah State Board of Education’s publicly available 2024 report. Data was downloaded to an Excel spreadsheet and then sorted by biological sex variable. Data preparation proceeded in the following four steps: 1. Scope and exclusions. To align for comparability and reporting accuracy, sizing restraints and reporting factors were used to screen for eligible districts. Charter schools were removed due to inconsistent reporting and school districts with student populations below 250 were excluded for size comparability. 2. Eligibility check. Districts were retained only if biological sex-disaggregated graduation percentages were available for the current year; because only 43% of districts met this bar, subsequent analyses were limited to this subset. 3. Gap computation. For each eligible district, the gender gap was computed at: Gap = Female graduation rate - Male graduation rate. For example, Tooele’s 84.4% (female) and 73.4% (male) yields an 11.0-point gap; Jordan’s 91.6% (female) and 89.2% (male) yields a 2.4-point gap (USBE, 2024). 4. Extreme set identification. Data was broken down into the top 10 and bottom 10 gap computations districts, which most accurately represented the highest and lowest graduation gaps with adequate similarities for comparison. MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 16 Participants The quantitative phase of this study analyzed high school graduation rates across Utah’s traditional public school districts using 2023/2024 data from the Utah State Board of Education (n.d.). The analytic population comprised public school districts (local education agencies; LEAs) with sex-disaggregated graduation rates. Charter schools and school districts below a 250 cohort population were excluded due to non-comparable accountability and reporting structures and to avoid randomness of small sample size. Consistent with the scope of this study, no additional identity variables (e.g., race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status) were included, as the primary focus was on biological sex-based disparities. Twenty Utah LEAs met inclusion criteria (N=20) MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 17 Table X 2024 Utah School District Cohort Counts School District Name Cohort Count Alpine District Box Elder District Cache District Canyons District Davis District Duchesne District Granite District Iron District Jordan District Logan City District Morgan District Nebo District Ogden City District Park City District Provo District Salt Lake District Sevier District Tooele District Uintah District Washington District 6789 1012 1640 2964 5992 402 5285 826 5203 355 280 2861 916 426 1081 1930 343 1509 559 3037 Note. Adapted from Utah State Board of Education. (n.d.). *Graduation rates by student group (2023–2024)* [Data set]. Utah State Board of Education. Retrieved August 13, 2025, from https://schools.utah.gov/datastatistics/_datastatisticsfiles_/_reports_/_graduationdropoutrates_/Gr aduationRatesStudentGroup2024.xlsx MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 18 Data Analysis Descriptive statistics were used to calculate mean differences in graduation rates between male and female students in each district. During this phase, the primary variable of interest was the graduation gap, defined as the difference between male and female graduation rates for 20232024 school year. No other inferential statistics were applied at this stage, as the purpose was exploratory and descriptive. The identification of Tooele and Jordan School Districts provided the basis for the subsequent qualitative phase. Graduation data served not only to confirm the presence of a gender gap in Utah, consistent with the national trends, but also informed the selection of districts where teachers could be interviewed to explore classroom level perceptions and practices. Limitations of Phase 1 The quantitative phase examined graduation rates by biological sex only, without controlling for other influential factors such as race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability status, or English language proficiency. Using data from a single academic year limits the ability to detect district variation, examine trends over time, or establish causal relationships. Additionally, the accuracy of findings depends on the consistency of state-reported graduation rates, which may vary by district. Finally, the use of an unweighted mean to calculate graduation averages, may have constrained accurate interpretation of the numbers. PHASE 2 (P2) – Qualitative Participants The qualitative phase of this study included six high school teachers, four from the Tooele School District and two from the Jordan School District. The districts were purposively selected following outreach to multiple school districts identified based on their male-female MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 19 graduation rate disparities, and permission to conduct interviews was requested from those representing districts with the largest and narrowest sex-based achievement gaps. Tooele School District, which had the highest reported gap in the state (11.0%), and Jordan School District, which had one of the lowest (2.4%), were among the districts that responded and granted approval for participation. Eligible participants had at least one year of teaching experience and taught within one of the four core subject areas: Math, Science, English, or History. All participants were currently employed at public schools within the selected districts at the time of the study. Identifiers were made anonymous using pseudonyms and subject references to preserve confidentiality. Data Collection Data was collected through semi-structured, open-ended interviews lasting approximately 30-45 minutes each. Participants were interviewed in person or via Zoom, depending on availability and preference. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis. The interview protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB #AY22-23-314), after obtaining informed consent from each participant prior to data collection (Appendix B). The interview protocol (Appendix A) was structured around five core open-ended questions exploring the following: (1) Perceived gender differences in academic performance, (2) Instructional adjustments made in response, (3) Observed effectiveness of these adjustments, (4) Hypothesized causes of male underperformance, and (5) Teachers’ overall reflections on the issue. Questions were designed to elicit detailed reflections and examples, allowing themes to naturally emerge during analysis. MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 20 Interview Questions Participants were asked a series of five open-ended questions, supplemented by clarifying probes where appropriate to elicit deeper reflection and concrete examples. 1. On average, have you noticed a difference in male and female student achievement in your classroom? 2. Have you made adjustments to your teaching strategies of curriculum to address the gaps in academic performance among your male students? 3. What changes have you made? 4. Have these changes made a difference? 5. If not for curriculum changes, where do you think the issue lies in lower academic performance amount male students? Responses from these questions provided insight into both perceived trends and teacher level interventions. For example, one teacher from the Tooele School District noted, “girls tend to turn in their homework more often,” while male students were described as “frequently disengaged and unwilling to submit any work at all.” In response, the teacher introduced more scaffolded and chunked assignments to boost follow-through, particularly among their male students. While these strategies led to some improvement in participation and assignment completion, male student disengagement remained evident across multiple classrooms. Similarly, a teacher in the Jordan School District expressed caution in generalizing sexbased differences, stating, “I’ve seen some differences, but wouldn’t say it’s universal,” while MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 21 acknowledging that “female students tend to be more organized and turn in assignments more consistently.” Data Analysis Interview transcripts were manually coded using an inductive, semantic approach. Each response was entered into an Excel spreadsheet and assigned an initial descriptive code based on its content. (e.g. apathy, disengagement, curriculum adjustment). These codes were then sorted and grouped to identify recurring themes across interviews. This process allowed patterns to emerge directly from the participants’ language and experience rather than from a predetermined coding framework. The resulting themes were used to structure the analysis and interpret patterns related to sex-based differences in students and look for possible instructional responses. Limitations of Phase 2 While this study offers important insights into how Utah educators experience and address sex-based academic disparities, several limitations must be acknowledged. The small qualitative sample size and focus on only two districts limit the generalizability of findings. Additionally, the study does not consider intersection factors such as race, disability, or socioeconomic status, which may also impact graduation outcomes. Finally, teacher perceptions are inherently subjective and may be influenced by personal biases or incomplete observations. Results The purpose of this study was to explore the male/female graduation gap in Utah public high schools, confirm whether the state reflects national trends, and examine how teachers are experiencing and responding to these differences at the classroom level. The findings are presented in two phases: (1) quantitative analysis of graduation rates by biological sex, and (2) qualitative exploration of teacher perceptions and practices from districts at either sex-based gap MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 22 extreme (i.e., very large and very small gap) of differences in graduation rates by sex. Themes taken from the data were then examined in light of existing literature on the male achievement gap. Quantitative Findings The quantitative portion of this study set out to determine whether Utah was experiencing the same graduation gap by biological sex seen nationally and to identify districts at the extremes for follow-up interviews. The pattern is clear; across the districts included in the analysis framework, female graduation rates averaged 4.1 percentage points higher than their male counterparts (USBE, 2024). This supports the national picture for 2022-2023, where females graduated nationally at 89.9% and males at 84.9%, a 5.0 percentage point gap (NCES, 2024). See Figure 1 for a side-by-side view of the national and Utah estimates. Figure 1 High school graduation rates by biological sex: National (2022-2023) and Utah (2023-2024) MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 23 Due to incomplete reporting, only 43% of districts provided usable, sex disaggregated data (USBE, 2024). From this eligible pool, we ranked districts by calculated gap disparity to highlight the top 10 (largest gaps) and bottom 10 (smallest gaps). Observed gaps varied by LEA; the widest gap appeared in Tooele District (female = 84.4%; male = 86.9%; gap = 11.0 points), whereas among the districts with the narrowest gaps in performance were Jordan District (female = 91.6%, male = 89.2%, gap = 2.4%) and Logan City District (female = 91.6%, male = 91.0%; gap = 0.6 points). These values align with the district summaries compiled in Table 1. Table 1 2024 Utah School District Male/Female Graduation Gap School District Name Cohort Count Tooele District Granite District Provo District Uintah District Box Elder District Ogden City District Duchesne District Morgan District Iron District Salt Lake District 1509 5285 1081 559 1012 916 402 280 826 1930 Graduation Rates by Sex Male Female 73.4% 84.4% 75.7% 82.8% 84.0% 90.8% 84.0% 90.5% 84.4% 90.5% 86.4% 92.3% 80.6% 85.9% 91.1% 95.5% 88.9% 93.2% 75.2% 78.8% Alpine District Cache District Jordan District Davis District Sevier District Park City District Nebo District Washington District Canyons District Logan City District 6789 1640 5203 5992 343 426 2861 3037 2964 355 89.8% 94.3% 89.2% 91.9% 86.8% 95.1% 93.4% 90.9% 86.8% 91.0% 93.0% 96.8% 91.6% 94.3% 89.1% 97.0% 95.2% 92.6% 88.3% 91.6% Graduation Gap 11.0% 7.1% 6.8% 6.5% 6.1% 5.9% 5.3% 4.4% 4.3% 3.6% 3.2% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 1.5% 0.6% MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 24 Note. Adapted from Utah State Board of Education. (n.d.). *Graduation rates by student group (2023–2024)* [Data set]. Utah State Board of Education. Retrieved August 13, 2025, from https://schools.utah.gov/datastatistics/_datastatisticsfiles_/_reports_/_graduationdropoutrates_/GraduationRatesStud entGroup2024.xlsx The most pronounced gap appeared in the Tooele District, with an 11.0 percentage point difference between female and male graduation rates (female 84.4%; male 73.4%). In contrast, Jordan School District was among the districts with the smallest gap between genders at 2.4% (female 91.6%; male 89.2%). Full values for these 20 districts are shown in Table 1. These findings indicated that all districts within the study parameters were experiencing some level of male/female graduation gap disparity. Finally, these quantitative results fulfilled the sequential explanatory design purpose by identifying Tooele District (high gap) and Jordan District (low gap) as informative contrasts for teacher interviews during the qualitative phase. Qualitative Findings Six teacher interviews from Tooele and Jordan School Districts were analyzed thematically using an inductive coding approach. Tooele and Jordan School Districts were intentionally chosen for the qualitative part of this study because they represent both ends of the spectrum in terms of sex-based differences in graduation rates. The systematic coding of participant responses resulted in five interconnected themes: (1) male apathy and disengagement, (2) female persistence and organizational strength, (3) instructional adaptations, (4) sociocultural barrier to male engagement, and (5) universal (rather than gender-specific) strategies. Together these themes try to capture teachers’ day-to-day experiences with male and female student engagement and performance in classes across both high and low gap districts. Male Apathy and Disengagement Across the interviews, teachers consistently described a subset of male students who appeared indifferent towards academic expectations, a pattern they perceived as more prevalent MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 25 among boys than girls. One educator from the Tooele School District remarked, “I know 5 or 10 girls [across all of my classes] that just don’t do anything ever. I probably have 30-40 boys… there’s a lot of boys, at least 3 per class that are like this.” Others noted that this disengagement often persisted despite the student’s capability, with one teacher from Jordan School District observing, “the ones that are completely checked out are mostly male students.” While another explained how “some boys seem to not care about school, not because they can’t succeed, but because they don’t see the relevance.” Participants described behaviors ranging from chronic work avoidance to minimal class participation, attributing them to factors such as lack of motivation, low confidence, and the perception that “it’s not cool to care about school.” Teachers in both Tooele and Jordan School Districts reported that male students were more likely to disengage from academic tasks, particularly written assignments and long-term projects. From the perspective of these educators, such apathy was less about academic ability and more about a lack of sustained engagement. One teacher from the Jordan School District stated, “most of the time if there’s apathy, it’s because they aren’t finding a way to connect with the content,” while another from the Tooele School District noted, “it is harder to reach out and get the boys more engaged, or try harder on assignments, or actually just care, even like 50% of the way on something.” Female Persistence and Organizational Strength Teachers frequently contrasted the disengagement they observed among certain male students with the persistence, organization, and self-advocacy they more often associated with their female students. For instance, one teacher noted that while several boys fell behind early and struggled to catch up, most of their female students were consistent in meeting deadlines. This was echoed by another teacher who said “I can still count on the majority of the females in MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 26 my classes actually completing the work, even if they're like, I don't like this class, it's not really my thing. I know that they're going to do the work, and they're going to try somewhat.” Similarly, a teacher from the Jordan School District noted, “the girls tend to turn in their homework more often than the boys do… girls are just generally better at things like organization and turning things in on time.” Beyond task completion, several teachers described girls as more proactive communicators about their academic needs. As one educator explained, “I’d be more likely to have a girl reach out and be like, ‘Hey, can I get an extension’ than a boy… girls are less afraid to ask for help usually.” Instructors also remarked that female students often displayed stronger follow-through, especially in collaborative or long-term assignments, which teachers linked to consistent work habits and a willingness to engage with feedback. Sociocultural Barriers to Male Engagement Several participants pointed to external influences, such as masculinity norms, social media culture, and pervasive ideas about curriculum relevance as possible contributors to the male academic gap. One teacher noted that boys in her classroom often avoided asking questions or seeking help, not because they did not need it, but because they seemed concerned about how it would be perceived by peers. As a teacher from the Tooele School District reflected, I think there is still this message being sent to boys that like it’s not cool to care about school, or maybe that caring too much about things isn’t masculine. Boys will tune out of the lesson before they will admit they’re lost. Other participants identified the role of technology and shifting student habits, with one teacher citing “cell phones and social media” as contributing to “no resilience to do anything that requires more effort.” While another added to that with their observations stating, “with social MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 27 media, they’re used to getting things in fifteen seconds or less, so anything that takes longer, they lose interest.” Finally, teachers from both districts pointed to a perceived lack of relevance in curriculum for male students, with one Tooele School District teacher noting, “some boys seem to not care about school, not because they can’t succeed, but because they don’t see the relevance” adding that the “structure of the 6-hour school day” can be particularly difficult for boys and neurodivergent learners. For some, this belief was reinforced at home. As one teacher from the Jordan School District recounted, “I have parents that will say, ‘well, if he fails English, it’s not a big deal because he’s going to be a welder,’ or ‘he’s going into construction, so why does he need to read Shakespeare?" Similarly, a teacher from Tooele highlighted the social practice of automatically promoting students without mastery. They suggested that this had left some boys feeling academically defeated: “we’re pushing kids through grades, then we have these kids that can’t keep up.” Instructional Adaptations Teachers in both the high and low gap districts described making deliberate adjustments to their instructional practices aimed at drawing disengaged students, often male, back into the learning process. These adaptations frequently addressed what teachers perceived as a decline in students’ stamina for sustained academic tasks and a need for more immediate, tangible progress markers. For instance, one teacher in the Tooele School District explained that to counteract low completion rates for large projects, they began “making my projects into chunk or bite-sized pieces… and doing a lot of checking in to make sure they are keeping up,” noting that this approach “has also helped with grades” because missing work was now “a piece or two, rather than a huge assignment worth a ton of points.” This sentiment was mirrored by another teacher MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 28 from Jordan School District who explained they had gone away from the traditional novel reading because they have “seen less apathy by going with shorter reads.” Other educators shifted their approach to incorporate more active and multimodal learning experiences, seeking to capture interest before disengagement could take root. A science teacher described “trying to get more engagement from my male students by doing more handson activities.” While not dramatically altering grades, this did result in “a definite increase in participation… especially from some boys that had just been coasting the whole year.” Others described substituting long-form writing tasks with alternative assessments such as video presentations or lab-based applications. For instance, a teacher from the Jordan School District noted that they “try to offer students more options… videos or infographics or even a podcast,” stating that “it encourages participation from students who might not normally engage.” These changes were not framed as gender exclusive, but rather as strategies to re-engage students who struggled with sustained attention, engagement, and turning in assignments. As one participant from the Jordan School District reflected, “I don’t think these strategies help only boys… they just help disengaged kids.” Still, teachers often observed that the male students they had previously struggled to motivate responded with higher participation and occasional sparks of genuine investment when instruction was infused with hands-on elements, or reframed through creative, student-choice options. As one teacher noted, “it’s a huge win when I see a normally quiet, withdrawn student start explaining something to a classmate or showing some excitement over a lab we’re doing.” Resistance to Gender-Specific Pedagogy While teachers acknowledged differences in gender related trends, many resisted the idea of adopting strategies based exclusively for individual students based on biological sex. Instead, MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 29 participants, universally, emphasized that their instructional changes were intended to support all struggling learners regardless of biological sex. As one teacher from the Jordan School District explained, “I wouldn't say I’ve ever sat down and thought, ‘okay, I’m going to make a change just for the boys.’ It’s more about what’s going to help whoever is struggling.’ Similarly, a teacher from Tooele District stated, “I don’t think we can make a blanket change for all boys or all girls. Every student is different, so it’s about meeting them where they are.” Another echoed this view, noting, “if I change something, it’s because the whole class needs it, not just one group. I don’t think you can single out one gender without missing other kids who need the same support.” Throughout the interviews, qualifiers were added consistently, changing the wording from “male students” to “struggling students.” For example, one teacher qualified their answer by stating, “I don’t think these strategies help only boys… they just help disengaged kids.” Discussion This study set out to determine whether Utah mirrors the national high school graduation pattern of male students lagging behind female students and to understand how teachers were experiencing that gap in their classrooms. After the quantitative phase showed a 4.1 percentage point gap favoring female students (NCES, 2023; USBE, 2024), I interviewed teachers from two districts at the opposite end of the gap, Tooele School District (11%) and Jordan School District (2.4%), anticipating that teachers would describe distinct day-to-day realities. Instead, what I found were strikingly similar stories. Teachers in both districts described a small but persistent subset of boys who were disengaged, missed deadlines, and seemed resistant to asking for help, with most girls described as more organized, persistent, and communicative. This overlap, more than the numerical gap in graduation rates by sex, became the real surprise of this study. MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 30 The similarity of teacher’s experiences, despite considerable divergence in the graduation achievement gaps, led me to reconsider initial assumptions about pedagogy as the primary driver of graduation differences. Prior literature may offer plausible explanations for this convergence. First, sex differentiated developmental timelines and early socio-emotional readiness advantages for girls may translate into the very classroom behaviors teachers consistently named, such as planning, self-regulation, and willingness to seek support (Isaac, 2012; Lenroot & Giedd, 2010; Reeves, 2022). This is seen in the interview data with teachers' observations about girls being “less afraid to ask for help” and more “consistent in communicating their needs.” Second, the sociocultural climate described by participants (i.e., “it’s not cool to care about school”) aligns with studies of peer norms that raise the social costs of visible effort for boys (Workman & Heyder, 2020). These findings may also support other research on male disengagement tied to lack of relevance and cultural messaging that stigmatizes academic effort among boys (Davis, 2009; Reeves, 2022). This is not to suggest that instructional adaptation is irrelevant, but quite the contrary. Teachers across both districts described pragmatic design changes like chunking larger tasks, adding checkpoints, offering hands-on options, and providing multiple assessment options which were noted to help reengage aimless students, but particularly boys. These adjustments align with recommendations to differentiate by task structure and modality, personalize content for relevance, and to remain conscientious of observed differences (Angeli & Valanides, 2020; Bonomo, 2010; Davis, 2009; Stevens-Smith, 2020). However, the impact instructional adaptations have on addressing the male/female graduation gap may be less than first assumed. One tension I kept circling was our collective reluctance to name what we were seeing. Teachers described patterns that clustered by sex, with boys drifting on organization, deadlines, MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 31 and asking for help, but most resisted calling their adaptations “gender-responsive.” I understand why. My review cautions that “addressing the male achievement gap, while still supporting equity for all students, requires careful consideration when designing classroom curricula,” not a hard sorting of strategies by sex (Bonomo, 2010; Stevens-Smith, 2020). It also reminds me to “avoid stereotypical assumptions while still addressing differentiated needs” (Stevens-Smith, 2020). At the same time, ignoring a reliably gendered pattern can become its own problem. As Davis (2009) noted, “even though gender stereotypes are often demonized … they can have a positive effect when paired with personalized learning options.” In practice, the alterations teachers favored, such as chunking longer tasks, tightening feedback loops, and building relevance, reflect a structure first stance, “through differentiated curriculum, both biological and sociologically constructed differences between sexes can adequately be addressed within the classroom” (Stevens-Smith, 2020), and engagement rises when content feels personally meaningful (Davis, 2009; Mozelius & Humble, 2023). Taken together, the literature gives me a way through the resistance: be gender attentive without being gender-essentialist. I think it’s important to continue to describe these practices as a universal design, available to all students, while being explicit about aiming them where the need is most visible in the data. Naming the pattern is not the same as creating a permanent rule; for this problem, it may be the more equitable choice. Implications Looking across the full scope of this study, several logical implications and future research directions emerge. First, the noticeable similarity of teacher experiences in both highgap and low-gap districts suggests that the male academic performance gap is less a function of district level variation and more a broadly distributed, classroom level phenomenon. This finding MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 32 implies that interventions aimed at improving male engagement should not be limited to schools with high statistical disparities, but should be integrated into everyday instruction practice across diverse subject contents. Teachers' professional development could focus on universal engagement strategies, such as chunking assignments, incorporating hands-on learning, and embedding authentic choice, while explicitly addressing how these approaches may particularly benefit disengaged male students. Furthermore, many teachers described boys as less likely to seek assistance or admit confusion. Teachers could work towards building in predictable help seeking structures such as, brief full class check ins, an anonymous question channel, and a quiet pass system for one-onone support. These moves are universal by design, but could directly address the patterns teachers reported, which is the equity aim here. Additionally, the findings underscore the importance of exploring sociocultural factors, such as masculinity norms and perceptions of relevance, as active barriers to male academic persistence. Future research might examine how these norms are reinforced or challenged within specific school cultures, peer networks, and family systems, and how intentional counternarratives can be cultivated. At the policy level, the first implication is foundational: improve the data. In the state dataset I used, fewer than half of districts reported usable sex-disaggregated graduation figures. This limitation forced me to sample narrowly and more importantly, makes routine monitoring of the gap difficult for schools to use. I recommend a state requirement, and technical assistance, for complete, sex-disaggregated reporting of graduation, credits on track, chronic absenteeism, and course failures, with public dashboards that allow schools to see trend lines over time. This aligns with federal expectations to track subgroup outcomes. In practice the State of Utah should MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 33 hold themselves to the same standard with sex as a routine factor alongside race/ethnicity, disability, and socioeconomic status. In tandem, policy makers should audit early literacy predictors that track male progress explicitly because closing the reading gap upstream may be a pragmatic lever on the graduation downstream (Lesnick et al., 2010). Together, better data, and policy attention to climate and early skill-building from a logical response that matches what this study surfaced. Conclusion This study began with a straightforward goal: confirm whether Utah mirrors the national graduation pattern by biological sex and, if so, understand how teachers experience and respond to it in their classrooms. The quantitative analysis showed a gap consistent with national figures, with female graduation rates exceeding male rates statewide (NCES, 2024; Utah State Board of Education [USBE], 2024). I then expected the qualitative phase to surface contrasting classroom realities in district at opposite ends of that gap. Instead, teachers in both contexts described remarkably similar patterns: a small but persistent subset of boys drifting on organization, deadlines, and asking for help, and girls described as more consistent and communicative. In light of the literature, I read these convergences as evidence that broader forces such as, developmental timing, peer norms around effort, and perceptions of relevance, are possible explanatory factors (Lenroot & Giedd, 2010; Workman & Heyder, 2020; Reeves, 2022). The curriculum adaptations teachers reported, chunking complex tasks, shortening feedback cycles, and providing multiple ways to demonstrate learning, fit a universal, structured approach to meet these patterns without labeling strategies by sex (Davis, 2009; Stevens-Smith, 2020). Limitations of scope remain: one year of district data, a small qualitative sample, and no intersectional analyses. Even with these boundaries, the integration of phases points in a clear direction for MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 34 practice and policy: build predictable instructional structures into everyday teaching, normalize academic help-seeking, and align systems to make the gap visible and address it early, so fewer students arrive in high school already behind (Lesnick et al., 2010; USBE, 2024). MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 35 References Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2020). Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, Article 105954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.018 Average GPA in High School. ThinkImpact.com. (2021, September 22). Retrieved April 22, 2023, from https://www.thinkimpact.com/average-gpa-in-high-school/ Allensworth, E. M., & Clark, K. (2020). High School GPAS and ACT scores as predictors of college completion: Examining assumptions about consistency across high schools. Educational Researcher, 49(3), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x20902110 Alwaely, S. A., Yousif, N. B., & Mikhaylov, A. (2020). Emotional development in preschoolers and socialization. Early Child Development and Care, 191(16), 2484–2493. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1717480 Ansell, S. (2011, July 7). Achievement Gap. Education Week. Retrieved April 22, 2023, from https://www.edweek.org/leadership/acheivement-gap/2004/09 Belkin, D. (2021, September 6). A generation of American men give up on college: 'I just feel lost'. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 22, 2023, from https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-university-fall-higher-education-men-womenenrollment-admissions-back-to-school-11630948233 Bhutta, N., Bricker, J., Chang, A. C., Dettling, L. J., Goodman, S., Hsu, J. W., Moore, K. B., Reber, S., Henriques Volz, A., & Windle, R. A. (2020). Changes in U.S. family finances from 2016 to 2019: Evidence from the survey of consumer finances. Federal Reserve Bulletin, 106(5), 1–42. https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf20.pdf MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 36 Bonomo, V. (2010). Gender matters in elementary education: Research-based strategies to meet the distinctive learning needs of boys and girls. Educational Horizons, 88(4), 257–264. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ895692.pdf Bryant, J. (2022, July 8). Women continue to outnumber men in college completion. BestColleges. Retrieved April 22, 2023, from https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2021/11/19/women-complete-college-morethan-men/ Buddin, R. (2014). Gender gaps in high school GPA and ACT scores. ACT Research & Policy. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED580104 Cosgrove, K. P., Mazure, C. M., & Staley, J. K. (2007). Evolving knowledge of sex differences in brain structure, function, and chemistry. Biological Psychiatry, 62(8), 847–855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.03.001 Crawford, K. (2018, June 13). New Stanford education study shows where boys and girls do better in math, English. Stanford Graduate School of Education. Retrieved April 22, 2023, from https://ed.stanford.edu/news/new-stanford-education-study-shows-whereboys-and-girls-do-better-math-english Davis, M. R. (2009). E-learning's gender factor; Educators are examining how boys and girls learn differently in online environments. Digital Directions, 3(1), 18. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A210024833/ITOF?u=ogde72764&sid=summon&xid=7b 648722 DeCasien, A. R., Guma, E., Liu, S., & Raznahan, A. (2022). Sex differences in the human brain: A roadmap for more careful analysis and interpretation of a biological reality. Biology of Sex Differences, 13, 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-022-00448-w MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 37 Devona, C. (2021, September 10). Prevent your preschooler from experiencing social-emotional delays due to the pandemic. Ann Arbor Family. Retrieved April 22, 2023, from https://annarborfamily.com/columns/health/prevent-your-preschooler-from-experiencingsocial-emotional-delays-due-to-the-pandemic/ Fortin, N. M., Oreopoulos, P., & Phipps, S. (2015). Leaving Boys Behind: Gender Disparities in High Academic Achievement. The Journal of Human Resources, 50(3), 549–579. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24735978 Goldman, B. (2017, May 22). How men's and women's brains are different. Stanford Medicine Magazine. Retrieved April 22, 2023, from https://stanmed.stanford.edu/how-mens-andwomens-brains-are-different/ Gurian, M., & Stevens, K. (2004). With boys and girls in mind. Educational Leadership, 62(3), 21-26. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ725955 Hinshaw, S. P., Owens, E. B., Zalecki, C., Huggins, S. P., Montenegro-Nevado, A. J., Schrodek, E., & Swanson, E. N. (2012). Prospective follow-up of girls with attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder into early adulthood: Continuing impairment includes elevated risk for suicide attempts and self-injury. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80(6), 1041–1051. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029451 Hung, M., Smith, W. A., Voss, M. W., Franklin, J. D., Gu, Y., & Bounsanga, J. (2019). Exploring student achievement gaps in school districts across the United States. Education and Urban Society, 52(2), 175–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124519833442 MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 38 Isaacs, J. B. (2012, February 29). Starting school at a disadvantage: The school readiness of Poor Children. The Social Genome Project. Center on Children and Families at Brookings. Retrieved April 22, 2023, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED530378 Jackson, B. T., & Hilliard, A. (2013). Too many boys are failing in American schools: What can we do about it? Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 6(3), 311–316. https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v6i3.7901 Keri, G. (2002). Male and female college students' learning styles differ: An opportunity for instructional diversification. College Student Journal, 36(3), 433. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=googlescholar&id=GALE|A95356596&v=2.1& it=r&sid=AONE&asid=48f2d974 Kommer, D. (2006). Boys and girls together: A case for creating gender-friendly middle school classrooms. The Clearing House, 79(6), 247–251. https://doi.org/10.3200/tchs.79.6.247251 Lenroot, R. K., & Giedd, J. N. (2010). Sex differences in the adolescent brain. Brain and Cognition, 72(1), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.10.008 Lesaux, N. K. (2023). Third grade reading success matters. The Children's Reading Foundation. Retrieved April 22, 2023, from https://www.readingfoundation.org/third-grade-readingmatters Lesnick, J., Goerge, R.M., & Smithgall, C. (2010). Reading on grade level in third grade: How is it related to high school performance and college enrollment? Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. https://www.chapinhall.org/research/third-gradereading-level-predictive-of-later-life-outcomes/ MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 39 Loveless, T. (2015, March 24). Girls, boys, and reading. Brookings. Retrieved April 22, 2023, from https://www.brookings.edu/research/girls-boys-and-reading/ Mozelius, P. and Humble, N. (2023) “Educational Game Design for Girls and Boys : Towards an Inclusive Conceptual Model for Learning Programming ”, EAI Endorsed Transactions on Creative Technologies, 10. doi: 10.4108/eetct.4043. Murnane, R. J. (2013). U.S. high school graduation rates: Patterns and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 51(2), 370–422. Nam, J. (2022, December 22). Average ACT score: BestColleges. BestColleges.com. Retrieved April 22, 2023, from https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/average-act-score/ National Center for Education Statistics (2019-2024). NAEP Report Card: Reading. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/reading/2024/g4_8/nationaltrends/?grade=4#score-trends National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). High school graduation rates: 2022–23 average cohort graduation rates (by gender). Digest of Education Statistics 2023, table 219.10. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from [https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d24/tables/dt24_219.10.asp?current=yes] Owens, J. (2016). Early childhood behavior problems and the gender gap in educational attainment in the United States. Sociology of Education, 89(3), 236–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040716650926 Parker, K. (2021, November 8). What's behind the growing gap between men and women in college completion? Pew Research Center. Retrieved April 22, 2023, from https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/08/whats-behind-the-growing-gapbetween-men-and-women-in-college-completion/ MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 40 Pomeroy, R. (2023, January 5). Boys are graded more harshly than girls. why? Big Think. Retrieved April 22, 2023, from https://bigthink.com/thinking/boys-graded-more-harshlyin-school/ Reeves, R. V. (2022, November 10). Redshirt the boys. The Atlantic. Retrieved April 22, 2023, from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/10/boys-delayed-entry-schoolstart-redshirting/671238/ Reeves, R. V., Buckner, E., & Smith, E. (2021, January 12). The unreported gender gap in high school graduation rates. Brookings Institute. Retrieved April 22, 2023, from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/01/12/the-unreported-gender-gap-in-highschool-graduation-rates/ Reeves, R. V., & Smith, E. (2022, March 9). The male college crisis is not just in enrollment, but completion. Brookings Institute. Retrieved April 22, 2023, from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/10/08/the-male-college-crisis-is-not-justin-enrollment-but-completion/ Ricciardi, C., & Winsler, A. (2021). Selection Into Advanced Courses in Middle and High School Among Low-Income, Ethnically Diverse Youth. Journal of Advanced Academics, 32(3), 291-323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X21990096 Sanders, J. (2002). Something is missing from teacher education: Attention to two genders. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(3), 241–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170208400314 Sax, L. (2006). Six degrees of separation: What teachers need to know about the emerging of sex differences. Educational Horizons, 84(3), 190–200. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ750623 MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 41 Shansky, R. M., & Murphy, A. Z. (2021). Considering sex as a biological variable will require a global shift in science culture. Nature Neuroscience, 24(4), 457-464. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-021-00806-8 Stevens-Smith, D. A. (2020). Brain-based teaching: Differentiation in teaching, learning, and motor skills. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 91(7), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2020.1781717 Tamborini, C. R., Kim, C. H., & Sakamoto, A. (2015). Education and lifetime earnings in the United States. Demography, 52(4), 1383–1407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-0150407-0 The Preschool & Elementary Years. AAUW. (2020, March 20). Retrieved April 22, 2023, from https://www.aauw.org/resources/article/the-preschool-and-elementary-years/ Utah State Board of Education. (2024). Graduation Rates by Student Group 2024. https://schools.utah.gov/datastatistics/_datastatisticsfiles_/_reports_/_graduationdropout rates_/GraduationRatesStudentGroup2024.xlsx Utah State Board of Education. (n.d.). *Graduation rates by student group (2023–2024)* [Data set]. Utah State Board of Education. Retrieved August 13, 2025, from https://schools.utah.gov/datastatistics/_datastatisticsfiles_/_reports_/_graduationdropoutra tes_/GraduationRatesStudentGroup2024.xlsx Workman, J., & Heyder, A. (2020). Gender achievement gaps: the role of social costs to trying hard in high school. Social Psychology of Education : An International Journal, 23(6), 1407-1427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09588-6 MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS Xin, J., Zhang, Y., Tang, Y., & Yang, Y. (2019). Brain differences between men and women: Evidence from Deep Learning. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13:185. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.00185 42 MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 43 Appendix A Open Ended Interview Questions 1. On average, have you noticed a difference in male and female student achievement in your classroom? (yes/no) 2. Have you made adjustments to your teaching strategies or curriculum to address the gap in academic performance among your male students? (yes/no) 3. What changes have you made? (open ended) 4. Have these changes made a difference? (yes/no) 5. If not for curriculum changes, where do you think the issue lies in lower academic performance among male students? (open ended) 6. Why do you think the changes made a difference in academic performance for your male students? (open ended) MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 44 Appendix B Consent Form IRB STUDY # AY22-23-314 WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY INFORMED CONSENT Exploration of the male student achievement gap You are invited to participate in a research study to explore why male students are falling behind their female counterparts in academic achievement. You have been asked to participate because you are a general education teacher in a secondary school in either Davis or Granite School District. The study is being conducted by Korie Bellamy, a graduate student in the education department at Weber State University. This study is solely intended for general inquiry and has no monetary funding. STUDY PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to explore why there is an average 5% biological sex achievement gap between male and female students across the nation, particularly in regard to high school graduation. It will further investigate if this gap in achievement is being observed at the classroom level and what, if anything, is being done to mitigate the discrepancy. NUMBER OF PEOPLE TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: If you agree to participate, you will be one of many teachers within the state of Utah selected based on qualifying criteria. More specifically, five schools were randomly selected from school districts with the largest and smallest male student gap in high school graduation rates. PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY: If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete an anonymous open-ended interview with the student researcher. The interview is anticipated to not last more than 20 minutes and will contain a base of 5 questions. The only identifying factors will be where participants are employed (i.e., high school, school district, and what subject they teach). RISKS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 45 The possible risks for participating in this study may include a risk of loss of confidentiality (through data breach), mostly because any online activity comes with such a risk. BENEFITS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY Although you will not receive any monetary compensation for participating, the benefits are that you can anonymously share your opinions on what, if any role, classroom curriculum affects the observed male/female gap in academic achievement. ALTERNATIVES TO TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: You can decline to participate in any part of this study for any reason and can end your participation at any time. This can be accomplished by contacting Korie Bellamy at koriebellamy@mail.weber.edu. COSTS/ COMPENSATION FOR INJURY In the event of physical injury resulting from your participation in this research, necessary medical treatment will be provided to you and billed as part of your medical expenses. Costs not covered by your health care insurer will be your responsibility. Also, it is your responsibility to determine the extent of your health care coverage. There is no program in place for other monetary compensation for such injuries. However, you are not giving up any legal rights or benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. If you are participating in research which is not conducted at a medical facility, you will be responsible for seeking medical care and for the expenses associated with any care received. CONFIDENTIALITY Efforts will be made to keep your personal information confidential. We cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality. Your personal information may be disclosed if required by law. Your identity will be held in confidence in reports in which the study may be published. Any information that you provide will not be revealed in any publications, reports, or presentations that are given with data received from participants. As with any interview answers, it may be possible to recognize specific information about an active participant. Organizations that may inspect and/or copy your research records for quality assurance and data analysis include groups such as the study investigator and his/her research associates, the Weber State University Institutional Review Board or its designees, the study sponsor, Dr. Dustin Grote and (as allowed by law) state or federal agencies, specifically the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [for FDA-regulated research and research involving positron-emission scanning], the National Cancer Institute (NCI) [for research funded or supported by NCI], the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [for research funded or supported by NIH], etc., who may need to access your medical and/or research records. CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS For questions about the study, contact the researcher Korie Bellamy at 801-546-3965 or the researcher’s mentor Dr. Dustin Grote at 801-626-6000 MALE STUDENTS IN CRISIS 46 For questions about your rights as a research participant or to discuss problems, complaints or concerns about a research study, or to obtain information, or offer input, contact the Chair of the IRB Committee IRB@weber.edu. VOLUNTARY NATURE OF STUDY Taking part in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to take part or may leave the study at any time. Leaving the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled. Your decision whether or not to participate in this study will not affect your current or future relations with Davis or Granite school districts. SUBJECT’S CONSENT In consideration of all of the above, I give my consent to participate in this research study. I will be given a copy of this informed consent document to keep for my records. I agree to take part in this study. Subject’s Printed Name: Subject’s Signature: Date: (must be dated by the subject) Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent: Signature of Person Obtaining Consent: Date: