Jay Matthews factor
By JohnL on Jun. 28, 2006.
A column by Jay Matthews, who is an education reporter for the Washington Post, has drawn attention, at least in part because it challenges the newly popular and (borrowing terminology from a colleague or Mr. Matthews, here) conventional wisdom that boys are in crisis.
Mr. Matthews went beyond the overblown reporting on this topic and dug into an extensive analysis by Sara Mead of Education Sector. Education Sector is an non-profit, non-partisan think tank examining issues in education, about which I shall write more in another post. For now, I address some of the content Mr. Matthews draws from Ms. Mead’s report called “The Truth About Boys and Girls.”
Although Mr. Matthews’ column and the report on which he bases it contain many other concerns, one part of the report that Mr. Matthews quotes refers to the preponderance of boys with “learning disabilities” (LD, a term which Mr. Matthews—he is not alone in this error—mistakenly equates with general special educational needs). In his quote, he omits a phrase from the original that I have indicated with underlining:
In addition to disadvantaged and minority boys, there are also reasons to be concerned about the substantial percentage of boys who have been diagnosed with disabilities. Boys make up two-thirds of students in special education—including 80 percent of those diagnosed with emotional disturbances or autism—and boys are two and a half times as likely as girls to be diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The number of boys diagnosed with disabilities or ADHD has exploded in the past 30 years, presenting a challenge for schools and causing concern for parents. But the reasons for this growth are complicated, a mix of educational, social, and biological factors. Evidence suggests that school and family factors—such as poor reading instruction, increased awareness of and testing for disabilities, or over-diagnosis—may play a role in the increased rates of boys diagnosed with learning disabilities or emotional disturbance. But boys also have a higher incidence of organic disabilities, such as autism and orthopedic impairments, for which scientists don’t currently have a completely satisfactory explanation. Further, while girls are less likely than boys to be diagnosed with most disabilities, the number of girls with disabilities has also grown rapidly in recent decades, meaning that this is not just a boy issue.
Although Mr. Matthews makes no more of the disability issue in his column, he recounts the overarching argument of the report, which is that the “boy crises” is overblown. It may be. That there are more boys in special education than one would expect based on population statistics is hard to dispute. And, as Mr. Matthews notes, the report cites alternative reasons for the discrepancy. What Mr. Matthews’ column omits is a later section in which the report calls for further funding of research about gender differences among students with disabilities. Here is that later call for support of studies of disabilities:
Finally, policymakers should support and fund more research about differences in boys’ and girls’ achievement, brain development, and the culture of schools to help teachers and parents better understand why boys’ achievement is not rising as fast as that of girls. Such research should include studies that use proper methodological and analytic tools to look into the cause of gender achievement gaps, as well as experimental evaluations of different approaches that seek to close them. To support research, policymakers should make sure that data systems are collecting quality information about boys’ and girls’ school experiences and academic achievement and men’s and women’s educational attainment and workforce outcomes. In addition, policymakers should fund research on some of the specific problems—learning disabilities, autism, and disciplinary or emotional problems—that disproportionately affect boys. [Emphasis added by JohnL]
This is a critical concern for special education professionals. I hope that Mr. Matthews’ discussion of this report will draw attention to the argument favoring funding of research. To be sure, we need to obtain full-funding (even if that only means 40% of the excess costs of providing special education services, a level that the US Congress has not seen fit to provide in the 30 years since it pledged to provide such funding). We also need focused funding for research about the features of disability that might be amenable to change.
Given adequate special educational services, many students with disabilities (including those with Learning Disabilities, Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, Mental Retardation, and even Austism) can, acquire skills and knowledge that will permit them to be contributing members of our society. To the extent that they acquire those skills and therefore contribute to the fabric of society and the tax roles, their competence is a double win for us. The more individuals with disabilities can contribute to society in their adult years, the fewer dollars they will require from society for support during those same years.
As a society, we need an investement in these individuals. It’s not just the humane thing to do, it’s the smart thing.
Author
John Wills Lloyd, Ph.D.
University of Virginia
Category: Commentaries, News