Documents clearly highlight disproportionate impact on boys, but 0 of 7 media outlets say so
The 2024 Washington state legislative session was the second straight year that lawmakers declined to reform laws about restraining and isolating students in public schools (House Bill 1479). In theory, restraining students or secluding them in isolation rooms should only occur when it’s “reasonably necessary to control spontaneous behavior that poses an imminent likelihood of serious harm” (RCW 70.96B.010). Many parties are alleging this law is not being followed.
There are two reports the legislature and media relied on for details about the problems associated with schools’ current practices. One report was jointly published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and Disability Rights Washington, and the other report was published by the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
“My son was regularly restrained in second grade. I recently asked him if he remembered anything from that year. His response was, ‘Oh, you mean the grade when I spent all my time in that little room.’” (source)
While both reports clearly state that boys are isolated and restrained at higher rates than girls, the ACLU’s report does a more thorough job of laying out the gender-related inequity. In addition to criticizing the practice of restraining and isolating children generally, the report includes comprehensive statistics about who is being restrained and isolated.
The ACLU says there are “egregious disparities in the practices of restraint and isolation based on student group membership,” specifying that “males and students with disabilities are experiencing the overwhelming share of occurrences of restraint and isolation.” The report includes the figures below:
Neglecting boys
Sean Kullman of Global Initiative for Boys and Men has written, “America’s sons face a communal neglect that begins early and continues into adulthood.” This is born out in the media coverage of the effort in our state to reform laws about isolating and restraining schoolchildren.
Every media outlet in Washington that covered this issue chose to highlight the disproportionate impact on children with disabilities, while not a single one mentioned the disproportionate impact on boys. In other words, zero out of seven writers deemed it worthwhile to tell their audience that it’s by and large our sons experiencing these practices that are “disabling, emotionally and psychologically damaging, and profoundly impactful,” as the ACLU puts it.
Not only did the media coverage selectively omit the gender-based disparity, but the reporting often highlighted disparities which are statistically less severe than the gender-based disparity, like ones pertaining to race, housing status, income status, and foster care status.
Who is being restrained and isolated?
We marked up the slide below made by the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to show which demographics the media acknowledge and which they don’t.
The words “male” and “boys” are right there in the two reports that are the primary sources of information on restraint and isolation occurring in our schools. This is not a case of writers failing to look into whether there is disproportionate impact based on gender. Rather, people are seeing that male children are the second most severely impacted student group after students with disabilities, and they’re deciding not to say so in their articles.
Seven articles, zero mentions of boys
People might say, “If teachers are physically restraining and isolating schoolchildren, I’m sure it’s mostly boys that’s happening to. That’s obvious.”
Whether a gender-based disparity is predictable or not, it is essential that we not shortchange our boys by refusing to acknowledge ways in which they’re disproportionately suffering. Academia, government, and the media are comfortable shining a spotlight on girls’ issues. If we don’t get comfortable shining a spotlight on boys’ issues too, then we’re playing favorites with our youth. We’re signaling to our male population that their wellness matters less.
Below is each media outlet that covered the legislature’s efforts in 2023 and 2024 to reform state laws about restraining and isolating students, along with what they wrote about the disparate impacts on student groups. (If we missed any articles, let us know.)
1. Seattle’s Child: “’There are egregious disparities in the practices of restraint and isolation against Black students, multi-racial students, low-income students, unhoused students, and students in foster care, and students with disabilities.’”
2. South Seattle Emerald: “The report identifies Black students, students with disabilities, and students in foster care as demographics disproportionately affected by these practices… ‘If you look at who we restrain, it’s the kids who are most traumatized — the students who all fall within those intersections of poverty, homelessness, foster care, students who are Black and multi-racial, and students who have disabilities.'”
3. The Everett Daily Herald: “A study by Disability Rights of Washington and the state’s branch of the ACLU found restraints and isolation against students in Washington schools occur ‘excessively and improperly’ as well as disproportionately against students of color and those with disabilities.”
4. The Spokesman-Review: “Isolation and restraint disproportionately impact our students of color and our students in special education programs.”
5. The Seattle Times: “The vast majority of these kids were special education students, and a wildly out-of-proportion number were Black.” (Perhaps the Times could have at least spared a note of concern specifically for Black boys, like Seattle Public Schools is doing with their Office of African American Male Achievement.)
6. KING-5 News: “‘We found that restraint and isolation are used disproportionately against students who are in kindergarten through grade 5, students who are Black and multiracial, students who are unhoused.'”
7. Washington Observer: “Students with disabilities comprised just 15% of enrollment in Washington public schools, but were subject to 84% and 93% of all reported incidents of restraints and isolation state-wide… Let’s remember the people most impacted, which in this situation, are young children, most of whom have disabilities.”
Let us be truthful
We strongly encourage people to use the words “boys,” “men,” and “males” without apology when there are disparities that impact them. Let us be bold. Let us be truthful.
The unwillingness to acknowledge — or the lack of interest in acknowledging — males as a population group disproportionately impacted by particular problems is systemic. It’s routine. We see it again and again (e.g. suicides, opioid overdoses, lack of grant funding).
In a recent commentary written for the American Institute for Boys and Men, clinical psychologist and author Lisa Damour says, “We are doing a better job of noticing the emotional distress of our teen girls. It is time to pay the same attention to our teen boys.”
Even the ACLU’s own news release about their report downplays the gender-based disparity by excluding it from their headline, which reads: “Washington Schools Routinely Physically Restrain and Isolate Students, Disproportionately Subjecting Students with Disabilities, Black, Homeless and Foster Care Students to Traumatic Practices that Violate State Law”. It’s the fifth paragraph of the news release before they mention boys:
“Students with disabilities, Black, homeless, low-income, male, elementary, and foster care involved students experience the highest rates of restraint and isolation, according to the report.” – American Civil Liberties Union of Washington
Conclusion
Monitoring media coverage in this way might seem overly nit-picky. However, it provides further evidence that for our government officials and for society in general, addressing the disparities, inequities, and gaps where males are worse off remains off of the agenda. Awareness of boys’ and men’s issues remains low. We must change the status quo by increasing the amount of high-quality advocacy being carried out that focuses on boys, male youth, and men.