I think we could have predicted a book called "Unequal Childhoods" would be depressing

[pktechgirlbackup]

Good news everyone: I finished Unequal Childhoods and will be going into another nonfiction fast for a bit, so I will maybe be shutting up for a bit, except actually I finished last week and was waiting to post this till I finished the posts I'd held in reserve (yes, this was me pacing myself), and I keep coming up with new things to say, so maybe not.

If there's one piece of good news in the book, it's the dearth of an influence of race. Black families in the study had to deal with slightly more crap than their white counterparts, but in general, being SES trumped race. Middle class families practice "concerted cultivation", which means signing your kid up for 5 million activities, encouraging him to use words as magic spells, and vigorously fighting educators on his behalf, and poor and working class families practice "natural growth", which means giving your kid lots of autonomy to go out and play, expecting obedience to adults, and a lot of deference from you to authority figures. This surprised me because every other study I've read (see Black Picket Fences for an example, but I've read it in many other places) report black middle class families doing less concerted cultivation than white middle class families. Either this study is a fluke, or the difference lies in the definition of middle class: most studies use income level, but UC used the social status of the parent's job (interesting/high autonomy/requires education=middle class, boring/low autonomy/doesn't require education = working class, none = poor. Note that this means you can end up with a working class family having more money than a middle class family, if the working class parent has a high paying union job and the middle class parent is an arty type. But I don't think that was the case for any of the focal families). Further proof that the S is in SES for a reason.

There's also a number of interesting tidbits about teachers in the book. I have friends who are teachers (and are reading this), so I want to make it clear that I know not all teachers are like this, but in general: aaargh. The teachers at the poor school complain about parents who don't care and don't do enough. The teachers at the rich school complain about parents who are too quick to intervene and over schedule their kids. And that's okay. People like things that make their job easier. I complain about my devs not documenting even though it's a basic fact of my job. But somehow when teachers do it (not all teachers, but not just the ones in this book either), it takes on this edge of sanctimony. They're not suggesting you do more/less/different because it would make their job easier, no, they're suggesting it for the welfare of your child, you over protective/neglectful bitch. And it is always the mothers they're complaining about.

The author mentions that no poor kid would ever take food (from their family, in their family's house) without asking a parent first. This is one of those things that simultaneously made me understand something a new light, made perfect sense as soon as heard it, and would never, ever have come up with on my own, event though it made perfect sense as soon as I heard it. It may also be my new definition of poor.

At the end of the book, the author admits you can't make poor/working class parents act like middle class parents by giving them money, but nonetheless thinks we should do that. She also suggests things like scholarships for extracurriculars, which I think is a fantastic idea and have contributed to organizations that do just that, but I wish she didn't assume the government is the one to do it. I wonder if providing an advocate would do any good- someone to go to the dentist with the family and explain to the mother what "tooth decay" means (actual example from book), to yell at the school if a kid's special needs testing feel through the cracks (again, actual example), and maybe slip in a $25 registration fee for band now and again. So like Treehouse, but without requiring the kids to go into foster care. I'm already on board with extracurriculars at schools, including publicly funded ones, but this is just another reason for it.

Comments

[lepid0ptera]

Um. I would never take food without asking for it in my house. In fact, when I go back home I still revert to this behavior.

It had nothing to do with there not being enough food, it's just that we had set mealtimes and my mother wouldn't want me to spoil my dinner.

[pktechgirl.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. The book indicated this was a widespread pattern, but that doesn't mean universal.

[lepid0ptera]

Haha, well I was just momentarily taken aback that this wasn't normal, the way that you were taken aback that it was, in poor families.

When I went to Cornell and could EAT FOOD WHENEVER I WANTED it was totally crazy. I felt that I was that guy from Hatchet going into a grocery store after returning from the wilderness...

[scythe-of-time.livejournal.com]

OMG That was my favorite book ever when I was little, thank you so much for being someone else who read it. :D

[crystalpyramid]

That year of teaching in the Bronx has made me hugely grateful for the overambitious overscheduling parents of the kids I teach now. I wish they didn't put so much pressure on kids over grades per se, but I'm really glad they show up and care.

[stolen-tea.livejournal.com]

That "words as magic spells" thing puts me in mind of a lot of the discussions of "privilege" that have been going around for the last bit. Both seem to be rooted in different ways of looking at the world - one way involves seeing the world as a place filled with opportunities, and the other as a place filled with lurking reasons and ways for Them to Get You because They Don't Like You. :(

And it's not like anyone's ever completely in one viewpoint or the other; we all switch back and forth depending on our context. But I can't help but feel that the first viewpoint is a much happier and more productive place to be.

[scythe-of-time.livejournal.com]

Also known as the Scarcity v. Abundance dichotomy! :)

[pktechgirl.livejournal.com]

I feel like this is tickling something interesting or important in my brain, but when I try to talk I just circle it instead of explaining it. So expect more on this later.

[stolen-tea.livejournal.com]

To ramble briefly further, I think one of the cruelest aspects of systematic oppression is how it tends to cause people to shrink their worlds. :(

[pktechgirl.livejournal.com]

Could you expand on your use of the word "systematic"? Even though semantically it seems to match my constant use of the word "system", I feel like systematic implies one or a few people in charge and deliberately oppressing others. When I talk about oppressive systems, I tend to assume the system arose through some combination of stupidity, laziness, and it-seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-a-time, not deliberate action. It might look airtight, but that's because non-airtight systems eventually collapse.

[stolen-tea.livejournal.com]

I would say my use of "systematic" is roughly, "functions like a system". One might say "the marketplace economy systematically disadvantages people with bad math skills", with much the same type of meaning.