e-mail
I am giving you bonus post today to share with you an article from the Associated Press. According to the article Study: Adoptive Parents Get High Marks by David Crary, adoptive parents fare very well when compared with bio families. Here is a brief summary of the article:
According to a study published in the American Sociological Review, adoptive parents do a good job investing time and money in their children when compared to biological parents. Some of the areas in which adoptive parents fared well include…
- Reading with their children
- Eating with their children
- Talking with their children about their problems
Brian Powell, a sociologist at Indiana University who co-authored the study, was quoted as hypothesizing that one reason for this extra involvement by adoptive parents is because they really want children and work hard to add them to their families. The article quotes Mr. Powell as saying that in a culture in which many people do not view adoption as “real parenthood,” adoptive parents try to compensate by being better parents.
The authors of the study reviewed data from 13,000 households with family members who were in the first grade. There were 161 families studied with two adoptive parents. These families collectively achieved better ratings than the other families in the study in the following areas:
- Attending religious services as a family
- Being involved in the school
- Exposing their children to cultural activities
- Helping children with their homework
The adoptive families lagged behind the other families in the study when reviewed on how frequently they talked with the parents of other children.
The adoptive couples in the study tended to be older and wealthier than the biological parents in the study. Even when adjustments were made to even out income levels, adoptive families still showed an advantage but to a lesser degree.
While some people see this study as calling into question the societal belief that children fare better when raised by their biological parents, others point out that there are many types of families that are good for children. Adoptive families are not “better” or “worse;” they simply bring different strengths into their families.
Here are the credits for the study as provided by the article:
The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Spencer Foundation and the American Educational Research Association. Powell’s co-authors were Laura Hamilton, a doctoral student at Indiana University, and Simon Cheng, a sociology professor at the University of Connecticut.
And in the condensed version, you left out this very important part:
Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, welcomed the study’s findings, but cautioned against possibly exaggerated interpretations of it.
“It’s an affirmation that there are all sorts of families that are good for kids,” he said. “Adoptive parents aren’t less good or better. They just bring different benefits to the table. In terms of how families are formed, it should be a level playing field.”
I did include the quote in my excerpt (your second paragraph). I think that quote was a very important observation. Adoptive families are not better or worse. I fully agree that there should be a level playing field rather than assuming that a family formed by adoption is any less of a family than a biological one.
My excerpt also does not include the political slants. If you click over to the full article, there are comments about what this means for same-sex marriages, both pro and con. That was outside of the scope of “Hoping to Adopt.” I was more interested in the study itself.
Take care,
- Faith