A new Duke University study on child well-being says one thing but the
university's press release and subsequent news articles say quite another. Since
the study has the potential, ultimately, to shape public policy from classrooms
to every corner of the workplace, knowing what it actually says seems rather
important.
The
researchers open the study's abstract by noting
"the question of whether boys or girls... have
been doing better...has been a point of
sometimes rancorous debate among feminist and
other scholars in recent decades. But
surprisingly little systematic empirical inquiry
has been devoted to this question."
The
researchers conducted their inquiry, followed
through on their stated objectives, and did
their jobs competently. Those publicizing the
study have not.
According to Sarah Meadows, one of the authors,
the study clearly contradicts the popular notion
that there is a "girl crisis" or that modern
girls are disadvantaged. However, the university
added a twist of its own, announcing that
"American boys and girls today are faring almost
equally well across key indicators of education,
health, safety and risky behavior." Press
reports have followed suit, with headlines such
as "Boys, girls fare equally in U.S.: Study
debunks both sides in long debate" and "Boy-girl
gender gap? Not so fast."
Yet the
study shows nothing of the sort. Boys and girls
fared equally in six of the 28 categories
studied by the researches -- and girls fared
better than boys in 17 of the remaining 22.
The
male advantages were modest. For example, males
had a small advantage in math, a slightly lower
propensity to smoke, and less likelihood to have
been relocated in the past year.
By
contrast, many of the girls' advantages are
huge. Their death rate in the 15 to 19 age group
is half that of boys, and boys have higher death
rates at all ages than girls. While girls do
attempt suicide more frequently, boys aged 15 to
19 commit suicide at four times the rate of
girls. Boys aged 12 to 19 are 40% more likely to
be the victims of violent crime than girls, and
are significantly more likely to suffer from
drug or alcohol addictions.
The
greatest controversy over boys and girls has
been in the area of education, beginning in the
early '90s when misguided feminists declared a
highly-publicized "girl crisis."
The
girl crisis was largely based on the work of
then-Harvard professor Carol Gilligan, and was
subsequently challenged by American Enterprise
Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers, author
of The War Against
Boys. Accordingly, the Duke University
study, which was supported by the Foundation for
Child Development (FCD) and published recently
in the journal Social Indicators Research, is
titled "Assessing Gilligan vs. Sommers:
Gender-Specific Trends in Child and Youth
Well-Being in the United States, 1985 to 2001."
The
study showed that the boy crisis in education
described by Sommers is far more real than the
girl crisis posited by Gilligan. The percentage
of boys graduating from high school has now
dropped back below 1985 levels. Girls get better
grades than boys and are much more likely than
boys to graduate high school, enter college, and
graduate from college. Although more girls than
boys enroll in high level math and science
classes, boys did score a couple of points
better on the most recent national math test
considered by the study. However, girls'
advantage on the most recent reading test is
five times as large.
The
vast majority of learning-disabled students are
boys, and boys are four times as likely to
receive a diagnosis of attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder as girls. Boys are far
more likely than girls to be disciplined,
suspended, held back, or expelled.
Recess
time, which research shows is more critical for
boys than for girls, has been cut back
nationally. According to the U.S. Department of
Education, vocational education, also of greater
importance to boys than to girls, suffered a
sharp decline from 1982 to 1992 and has never
recovered.
Since
the early '90s the public discourse on gender,
youth and education has largely been set by
feminist academics and advocates. The events
surrounding this new study show that this is
still true, as both Duke and the media covering
the study have been unwilling to publicize what
the study clearly shows -- it is boys who are in
crisis.
This column was first published in the
Los Angeles Times (3/20/05).
Glenn Sacks is a men's and
fathers' issues columnist and a
nationally-syndicated radio talk show host. His
columns have appeared in dozens of America's
largest newspapers.
He taught elementary school
and high school in Los Angeles Unified School
District and others, and was named to "Who's Who
Among America's Teachers" twice.