The Trouble With Boys

In a recent New York Times column, Thomas Edsall described the alarming ways in which boys are losing “the ability to feel good about themselves.”  As is Edsall’s wont, he produces mountains of evidence to illustrate the problem.  Most of his references are to arcane sociological research and quotes from economists.  Central to his thesis is this excerpt:

A decade ago, Marianne Bertrand and Jessica Pan, economists at the University of Chicago and the National University of Singapore, concluded in their paper “The Trouble With Boys: Social Influences and the Gender Gap in Disruptive Behavior”

Family structure is an important correlate of boys’ behavioral deficit. Boys that are raised outside of a traditional family (with two biological parents present) fare especially poorly. For example, the gender gap in externalizing problems when the children are in fifth grade is nearly twice as large for children raised by single mothers compared to children raised in traditional families. By eighth grade, the gender gap in school suspension is close to 25 percentage points among children raised by single mothers, while only 10 percentage points among children in intact families. Boys raised by teenage mothers also appear to be much more likely to act out.

Additional evidence is offered to purportedly prove the ineffectiveness of single parent families and the permanent disadvantages such parenting confers on boys.  Edsall’s thesis is both offensive and wrong.  Like many who cite research and statistics, he conflates association and, perhaps, correlation with cause.

It is inarguably true that a subset of boys, particularly boys of color,  experience discipline problems in school.  Bertrand and Pan attribute this as follows:  “Family structure is an important correlate of boys’ behavioral deficit. Boys that are raised outside of a traditional family (with two biological parents present) fare especially poorly.” 

Boys don’t have “behavioral deficits.”  Schools and society more broadly have deficits that disproportionately harm boys, again particularly boys of color.

Edsall ignores the fine book "The Trouble With Boys," by Peg Tyre. Ironically, he and the researchers "borrowed" the phrase without attribution.

As a long time educator, I share Tyre's view that a significant reason for boys' disadvantaged position is that schools are designed in a fashion more suited for girls.  The immaturity and benign impulsivity exhibited by boys draws a punitive response which sets a pattern of negative reinforcement.  The rigid academic and behavioral expectations in traditional schools are not good for any children, but young girls are far better at compliance and conformity.  This sets other dynamics in place that are ultimately harmful to girls, but early failure and disillusionment is primarily the sad province of young boys.

The pressure of testing and inappropriately rigid age-based accountability have exacerbated the problem.  While the myriad other factors Edsall cites are valid, the failure of schools to understand boys is a major factor.

Most schools are not designed well for any children, but boys suffer most, including at the hands of teachers who don't understand them or like them very much.

The most serious flaw in his analysis is the neglect to account for the corrosive effects of poverty and race.  The assertion (family values nonsense) that two biological parents are a superior milieu is a needless slap in the face to single parents, primarily women.  I’d like Edsall and his academic friends to walk a mile or two in their worn down shoes.

The median income for families led by a single mother in 2019 was about $48,098, well below the $102,308 median for married couples. Out of more than 10 million low-income working families with children, 39% were headed by single working mothers or about 4.1 million. Single Black mothers have a poverty rate of 45-50%, depending on the source.  Let’s look at single mother parenting after our stingy nation provides adequate day care, gender wage equity and generous leave to respond to children’s needs.

It is little wonder that boys, particularly boys of color raised by single mothers, have more stress, less nutrition, environmental hazards and all the other broad effects of poverty.  They are profiled in their communities and subjected to all the well-documented impacts of systemic and pervasive racism.   They are quite likely to have the emotional burden of a father or other family member who is incarcerated.    But sit up straight and listen in class!!!

The tragic response to these boys is to add physical and emotional insult to injury.  Rather than responding with compassion and generosity, our schools respond with “no excuses” regimens that further assault the hearts and souls of these boys.  Suspension and expulsion rates are nearly five times higher for boys of color.

Articles like Edsall’s do a profound disservice by failing to properly identify the real issue. 

Boys of single mothers are subject to more disciplinary responses because we have neglected to provide the mothers and boys with adequate support.

 Then we send them to schools that punish them for their natural and understandable behavior.   To invoke the column’s title, how are they “supposed to feel good about themselves” when we don’t feel good about them?