Gender as a Factor in Special Education Eligibility, Services, and Results [taken from statsgov]

 Purpose:  To discuss differences in the characteristics of male and female students with disabilities, special education services provided to males and females with disabilities, and postschool results by gender.

 Although males and females comprise equal proportions of the school-aged population, males account for approximately two-thirds of all students served in special education (Doren, Bullis, & Benz, 1996; Wagner et al., 1991).  In many cases, it is not clear if females are underidentified for special education, if males are over-identified, or if real differences exist in the prevalence of disability between males and females. 

 Much of the research on disability has stressed commonalities among individuals with disabilities rather than addressed differences based on gender (Fine & Asch, 1988).  Consequently, little is known about the different characteristics and experiences of males and females with disabilities.

 Special Education Eligibility

 More than two-thirds of all students receiving special education services are male (Doren et al., 1996; Wagner et al., 1991).  Among secondary-aged students with disabilities, males constitute the largest proportion of each disability category except deaf-blindness, which is almost evenly divided between males and females (see table II-4). The disproportionate representation of males in special education seems greatest in the learning disability and emotional disturbance categories, which are often considered the disability categories with the most broadly defined eligibility criteria (Kratovil & Bailey, 1986).

 Tables II-4 and II-5 show the percentage of males and females in different disability categories.  Table II-5 includes elementary and secondary school students in three disability categories; table II-4 reports data in 11 disability categories for secondary-aged students only.

 Table II-4

Gender of Secondary-Aged Students with Disabilities, by Disability Category

 

Disability	Percentage Male	Percentage Female
Learning Disability	73.4	26.6
Emotional Disturbance	76.4	23.6
Speech Impairment	59.5	40.5
Mental Retardation	58.0	42.0
Visual Impairment	55.6	44.4
Hearing Impairment	52.0	48.0
Deafness	54.5	45.5
Orthopedic Impairment	54.2	45.8
Other Health Impairment	56.0	44.0
Multiple Disabilities	65.4	34.6
Deaf/Blindness	49.5	50.5
All Disabilities	68.5	31.5

 

Source:  Valdes et al. (1990).  The National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students: Statistical almanac (Vol. 1).  Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

 Not only are females less likely than males to be identified for special education, but the characteristics of identified females differ from those of identified males (Richardson et al., as cited in Gottleib, 1987).  For example, girls in special education score lower on IQ tests than boys.  The average  IQ for secondary-aged females with disabilities was 74.4; the average for males was 81.6 (Gottleib, 1987; Wagner et al., 1991).  According to parent reports, a greater percentage of secondary-aged females in special education began having difficulties indicative of a disability at very young ages, which may also suggest more severe disabilities (Valdes, Williamson, & Wagner, 1990).  Because learning disabilities and emotional impairments are not typically associated with below-average intelligence, the over-representation of males in these categories may skew the mean IQ of males in special education.

 Possible Causes of Disproportionate Representation

 Researchers and advocates offer several hypotheses for the fact that more males than females participate in special education.  It is likely that no single explanation accounts for all of the disproportion but that combinations of factors result in the distribution previously described.  First, physiological or maturational differences between males and females may cause higher rates of disability among school-age males.  Second, differences in the behavior of male and female students may predispose males to the identification of a disability.  For example, female students may adapt better to the predominant school culture and norms.  Teachers may also react differently to male and female students, which can result in higher rates of referral and classification for male students.  Third, methods used to identify students with learning disabilities, emotional disturbances, and speech and language impairments may be biased and, as such, may contribute to the disproportionate representation of males and females in special education (Harmon, Stockton, & Contrucci, 1992).

 Table II-5

Gender of Elementary and Secondary-Aged Students with Disabilities, by Disability Category^a

 

	Male	Female
Specific Learning Disability	69.3	30.8
Mental Retardation	59.0	41.6
Emotional Disturbance	79.4	21.0

 

a/Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding or reporting errors.

 Source:  U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 1994 Elementary and Secondary School Compliance Reports.

 Physiological/Maturational Differences.  Some researchers cite physiological or maturational differences between males and females as a cause for some disproportionate representation.  For example, girls are believed to have fewer birth defects and more rapid maturation than boys.  Females may be less prone to disability because they have two X chromosomes, and one of the X chromosomes may compensate for a defect in the other.  Because males have one X and one Y chromosome, they may be more susceptible to disabilities associated with chromosomal abnormalities, such as hemophilia and fragile-x syndrome, which can cause mental retardation (Harmon et al., 1992).  Some researchers theorize that differences in the structure of male and female brains may also contribute to differences in disability prevalence.  They speculate that male brains are more lateralized than female brains, meaning that one hemisphere is more dominant than the other (Hayden-McPeak, Gaskin, & Gaughan, 1993).  For example, functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) shows that phonological processing in men engages the left inferior frontal gyrus in the brain.  In women, phonological processing activates both the left and right inferior frontal gyrus (Shaywitz, 1996).  Parts of the corpus callosum, which connects the two hemispheres, are also more extensive in females.  The exact relationships between these biological differences and disability are unclear (Hayden-McPeak et al., 1993).

 Research on differences between young boys and young girls suggests that girls mature more rapidly than boys (Harmon et al., 1992).  Many preschool programs stress impulse-control, small-muscle development, and language skills, but many young girls are competent in these areas before arriving in preschool.  The preschool experience may raise boys’ language achievement scores, thus narrowing the gap between girls and boys (Larson & Robinson, 1989).  However, maturational gaps could lead to inflated referrals of males for special education evaluation.

 To determine if there are differences in vulnerability to learning failure among young children, Karlen, Hagin, and Beecher (1985) administered a series of tests to all kindergartners and first graders in a sample of elementary schools.  The study showed very small or insignificant differences between the percentage of males and females at risk of school failure in urban, rural, and independent schools.  However, for unknown reasons, the differences were significant in suburban schools; 31 percent of the boys and 20 percent of the girls were at risk. 

 Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Fletcher, and Escobar (1990) found significant differences in the percentages of boys and girls identified by their schools as having reading disabilities but found no differences based on achievement and IQ test scores.  They also found that children who were identified by their schools as having a reading disability but who did not meet objective criteria for reading disabilities were more likely to exhibit difficulties in behavior, attention, fine-motor skills, and language skills.  Conversely, children who were not identified as having a reading disability despite meeting eligibility criteria were likely to have no perceived problems with behavior.  When students with learning disabilities also have attention deficit disorder (ADD), their learning disabilities may be more severe and resistant to intervention.  Because ADD is more prevalent in males than in females, males may be more likely than females to be identified by their schools as having learning disabilities (Felton & Wood, 1989; Lubs et al., 1991; Lyon, 1996).

 School Bias.  Males may be referred and found eligible for special education at higher rates than females because of gender differences between female teachers and male students or differences between the dominant school culture and male behavior (Kedar-Volvodas, 1983).  Women outnumber men in the general education teaching force (87 percent to 13 percent), particularly at the elementary level, when most students are referred for special education (Cook & Boe, 1995).  As long ago as 1976, evidence suggested a bias in teachers’ evaluation of students’ need for special education based on the student’s gender.  In a historic study, when given identical descriptions of individual children, teachers were more likely to refer boys for evaluation than girls (Gregory, 1977).  Female teachers may be more likely to identify boys’ behavior and learning styles as indicative of a disability, inflating the referral of boys for special education evaluation (Gottleib, 1987). 

 Other researchers speculate that some educators may have higher expectations for boys than for girls.  If boys do not perform to expected levels, teachers may refer them to special education in greater numbers than girls, for whom they have lesser expectations (Gottleib, 1987).  However, data suggest that boys are more likely than girls to be referred for special education based on their behavior and that girls are typically referred for concerns about academic performance (Clarizio & Phillips, 1986).  This finding may contradict the hypothesis that disproportion is due to differing academic expectations.

 Assessment Bias.  The disproportionate representation of males in programs for students with emotional disturbances may reflect a bias in the ways emotional disturbance is defined and/or the instruments used to identify students as eligible under those definitions.  Some assessment tools that schools use to evaluate students do not capture depression, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempts (Caseau, Luckasson, & Kroth, 1994).  Adolescent girls experience a higher rate of depression than boys (Boggiano & Barrett, 1992; Kazdin, 1990; Peterson, Sarigiani, & Kennedy, 1991), but the eligibility criteria for services under the emotional impairments category, or teachers’ tolerance of the withdrawal or depression exhibited by young women, may reduce females’ referral for evaluation and eligibility (McIntyre, 1990).  Those girls who receive services for emotional impairments usually exhibit the externalizing behaviors typically associated with boys (Casau et al., 1994).

 Table II-6

Percentage of Secondary-Aged Students with Disabilities Who Received Different Types of Services, by Gender 

Services	Male	Female
Job Training	63.2	56.8
Speech/Language Therapy	36.6	43.1
Personal Counseling/Therapy	34.6	33.7
Occupational Therapy/Life Skills Training	28.9	46.8
Tutor, Reader, Interpreter	32.9	32.2
Physical Therapy, Mobility Training	8.5	12.5
Help with Transportation	13.0	18.5

 Source:  Valdes et al. (1990).  The National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students: Statistical almanac (Vol. 1).  Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

 Services for Males and Females with Disabilities

 Once students are identified as eligible for special education, the services they receive do not differ greatly by gender, and teachers appear to consider an individual student when selecting instructional techniques (Leinhardt, Seewald, & Zigmond, 1982; Wagner et al., 1991).  No significant differences exist in the amount of funds expended on special education and related services for males and females (Singer & Raphael, 1988).

 Few significant gender differences were identified in secondary course-taking for students with disabilities, although higher rates of home economics and life skills instruction for females and a higher rate of vocational education for males were noted (Wagner et al., 1991).  Secondary-aged females with disabilities were more likely than males to receive some support services (see table II-6).  The disproportion fell particularly in occupational therapy/life skills training, transportation, and speech therapy (Cameto, 1993).

 Educational Results for Males and Females with and without Disabilities

 One way to evaluate whether education services are effective in meeting students’ needs is to examine student results.  These may include in-school results, such as grades and dropout rates, or postschool results, such as employment, wages, and postsecondary education.

 In-School Results

 Overall, girls with and without disabilities had better in-school results than boys with and without disabilities.  They received better grades, were more likely to graduate from high school, and were less likely to be suspended or expelled.  Boys did as well as girls on many standardized achievement tests and scored slightly better than girls on 12th grade math achievement.

 Test Scores and Grades.  Much has been made of perceived differences between males and females in verbal and quantitative skills.  Studies of achievement test scores indicate no consistent, sizable differences in verbal ability between boys and girls (Hyde & Linn, 1988).  Results on reading achievement, one aspect of verbal skills, are unclear.  The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the National Education Longitudinal Study  show girls performing better than boys on reading tests.  The High School and Beyond Survey shows boys performing better than girls on reading and vocabulary.  Differences in results may reflect the different ages sampled in each survey or differences in the tests given.  All three surveys show very small differences in achievement between boys and girls (American Association of University Women [AAUW], 1992), except in writing; data from NAEP show girls performing consistently better than boys on writing tasks (Mullis, Owen, & Phillips, 1990).

 Gender differences in math achievement appear to be small and shrinking (Friedman, 1989; Mullis, Dossey, Owen, & Phillips, 1991).  A recent NAEP administration showed few differences between boys and girls in math ability at grades 4 and 8 apart from a slight advantage for boys in measurement and estimation.  By 12th grade, some differences arose, and boys showed a small advantage in each area except algebra (Mullis et al., 1991).

 In general education, girls typically receive better end-of-year and end-of-course grades than boys (AAUW, 1992).  Again, it is not clear if girls work harder at mastering classroom material, if they have longer attention spans that permit them to acquire knowledge and skills more  effectively, or if they are rewarded by teachers for good behavior.  Whatever the reason, this pattern of grade accomplishment holds for students in special education as well as in general education.  Despite their lower mean IQ scores and the relatively early onset of their developmental difficulties, on average girls in special education receive higher end-of-year and end-of-course grades than boys.  Grade point averages for secondary-aged females with disabilities are significantly better than grade point averages for their male counterparts (see figure II-8).

 Figure II-8

Percentage of Secondary-Aged Students with Disabilities with Different Grade Point Averages, by Gender

Note:  Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Source:  Valdes et al., (1990).  The National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students: Statistical almanac (Vol. 1).  Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

High School Completion.  Females with disabilities are slightly more likely than males to graduate from high school and are less likely to be suspended or expelled (see figure II-9).  This is also true for females without disabilities (AAUW, 1992).  Although females with disabilities drop out of school at about the same rate as males, the reasons differ.  Parents report that 23 percent of female dropouts leave school because of marriage or parenthood, compared with only 1 percent of male  dropouts (Valdes et al., 1990; Wagner, as cited in Wagner et al., 1991).  Both male and female dropouts report disliking school and doing poorly in school (Valdes et al., 1990).

Figure II-9

School Exit Status of Youth with Disabilities, by Gender

 

Source:  Valdes et al., (1990).  The National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students: Statistical almanac (Vol. 1).  Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

 Postschool Results

 Despite their better academic performance, females with disabilities have less positive postschool results than their male peers.¹  They are less likely to be employed, have  lower wages, and are less likely to enroll in postsecondary education or training.

 Employment.  Young men with disabilities are more likely than young women to be employed and to earn more money (Frank, Sitlington, & Carson, 1991; Hasazi,  Johnson, Hasazi, Gordon, & Hull, 1989; Kranstover, Thurlow, & Bruininks, 1989; Sitlington & Frank, 1990; Wagner, 1992).  After being out of high school for 3 to 5 years, 65.9 percent of males and 48.6 percent of females report having been employed in the past year.  When controlling for other  factors, young men with disabilities earn $1,814 more per year than young women with disabilities (Wagner, Blackorby, Cameto, & Newman, 1993).  Young men earn higher hourly wages than young women and, on average, men work more hours (Sitlington, Frank, & Carson, 1992; Wagner, 1992).  The wage gap between men and women is not restricted to those with disabilities, however.  In general, women make up 45 percent of the work force, but they work primarily in clerical, service, or professional positions (Fullerton, 1989; Taeuber, 1991).  Even when women have the same level of education as men, they earn less.

 Several other factors may contribute to the lower incomes earned by women with disabilities.  First, many young women with disabilities have children and, consequently, do not work full time.  Three to five years after leaving high school, 41 percent of women with disabilities have children of their own, compared with 28 percent of same-aged women in the general population (Wagner, 1992).  As described in the next section, young women with disabilities are less likely than young men to enroll in vocationally oriented courses in high school, which may also limit their level of job competitiveness.  In addition, young women with disabilities are less likely than men to pursue additional education, training, and rehabilitation after high school.

 Postsecondary Education, Training, and Rehabilitation.  Fewer women than men with disabilities participate in postsecondary education and training in the years shortly after high school.  A larger percentage of women take postsecondary courses at 4-year colleges while a larger percentage of men enroll in job training programs and 2-year colleges (Valdes et al., 1990).  This is also true for youth without disabilities; 54 percent of all beginning postsecondary students are female (U.S. Department of Education, 1996).  Women with disabilities are also less involved with vocational rehabilitation services than men; this may contribute further to women’s economic disadvantage (Gragg, 1997; Menz et al., 1989).  Studies have found that the rehabilitation system is more helpful for men who are under 45 years of age, White, better educated, middle class, articulate, aggressive, and motivated (Kirchner, 1987; Stone, as cited in Fine & Asch, 1988).  Women who receive vocational rehabilitation services are more likely than men to have their cases closed while not earning wages (Vash, as cited in Fine & Asch, 1988), and women are more likely than men with similar skills and aptitudes to be directed toward traditionally female occupations (Packer, as cited in Fine & Asch, 1988), which often pay low wages.

 Independent Community Living.  Living independently, marrying, and having children are other aspects of the transition from adolescence to adulthood.  Three to five years after leaving high school, almost one-third of young women with disabilities are married, compared with 15 percent of young men.  Due to their marital status, young women with disabilities are more likely than young men to live apart from their parents.  However, their lower rates of  employment and greater social isolation limit their overall independence (Wagner, 1992).

 Compliance with community norms and laws is another measure of adjustment.  Three to five years after leaving secondary school, 15.8 percent of males and 4.2 percent of females with disabilities have been arrested (Valdes et al., 1990).  While in school, males with disabilities are 2.4 times more likely than females to be arrested, controlling for other variables (Doren et al., 1996).