Stanford
sociologist Sean Reardon wrote an important opinion piece for the New York
Times last week, “No
Rich Child Left Behind,” and I would like to add a few thoughts to it.
Growing economic inequality between the wealthy and just about everyone else
has been in the news for some time now. What Reardon does is offer data that
demonstrate how that economic inequality is being reflected in educational
achievement.
Examining math and reading test
scores over the past 50 years, Reardon found that “the rich-poor gap in test
scores is about 40 percent larger now than it was 30 years ago.” Other
researchers are finding that “the proportion of students from upper-income
families who earn a bachelor’s degree has increased by 18 percentage points
over a 20-year period, while the completion rate of poor students has grown by
only 4 points.” And it’s not just low-income kids who are being left behind;
one of Reardon’s striking findings is that “the rich now outperform the middle
class by as much as the middle class outperform the poor.” It’s not that poor
or middle-class kids (of any racial or ethnic background) are doing worse;
they’re inching up too. But the wealthy are accelerating at a faster pace.
Why?
Reardon believes that the wealthy
are providing increasingly enriched environments for their kids before they
enter formal schooling. “[E]ven though middle-class and poor families are also
increasing the time and money they invest in their children, they are not doing
so as quickly or as deeply as the rich.” The wealthy are investing in the early
cognitive development of their kids as never before.
Reardon focuses his attention on the
early years. One note I want to add is that the concentrated effort of both the
middle and upper classes on academic success continues all through school and
into college. Let me offer this excerpt from Back to School, the
occasion when, as a young man, the profound difference in preparation for
school became stunningly clear to me:
“Because of where and how I grew up, I
had minimal exposure to middle class homes, and it wasn’t until well after
college, once I had been teaching, that my access to such households became
more routine. On a visit to some college friends, I spent a little time with
their two kids. Each boy had his own room, and each was seated before his
computer. The rooms were appointed with bookshelves along one wall, and they
were filled with fiction and nonfiction, some lightweight stuff, but good
adolescent novels too, and a number of reference books. Alongside each computer
were a sophisticated calculator, a standard college Webster’s Dictionary, and a
thesaurus. (Today that computer would be supplied with a number of aids to
literacy and numeracy and would have high-quality Internet access. The boys
would have smart phones and most likely tablet computers.) The boys’ parents
were able to help them with just about any subject, any assignment, and the
boys were able to learn a lot about using the computer for academic purposes by
watching their parents, who used their own computers (the third and fourth in
the house) for a variety of work-related tasks.
As I found out early the next morning,
the parents had arranged their schedules such that each child could be driven
to music or athletic practice before school and tutoring or some other academic
program after. The boys had traveled overseas. And each was slated to spend a
part of the summer in an enrichment program, one in the arts, one in math
sciences.
It was wonderful to see my friends, and
the evening was full of laughs and reminiscence. But the boys’ rooms affected
me as soon as I crossed their thresholds, immediate, more visual and emotional
than analytic. How completely, utterly different from my childhood home. To see
advantage so clearly, so stark, and in this benign setting, well intentioned,
decent, two sweet kids…”
***
Reardon focuses on the wealthy, for
it is with the wealthy that the academic correlate of economic inequality is
especially striking. But, of course, this inequality at the upper end puts even
more pressure on a middle class that feels less and less secure, increasingly
anxious and uncertain about their ability to advance and pass on their economic
and social momentum to their children. This anxiety has led to an obsessive
jockeying for educational advantage, the hope for maintaining privilege
invested in ever-higher academic stakes. Twenty-five years ago, psychologist
David Elkind wrote with alarm about the “hurried child.” That child is now
hurtling, propelled through programs and technologies that were rare or
nonexistent a generation or two ago. At the front end, kids are prepped for
admission to kindergarten. (And the rich are enrolling their children in elite,
quite expensive kindergartens.) At the
other end, they’re navigating high school, adding up honors and advanced
placement courses, their parents paying for tutors, private counselors, all
sorts of special services to package them for admissions boards at the most
selective colleges. At my institution, UCLA, not the most restrictive of
universities, the typical admitted student comes in with eighteen honors and advanced placement courses, and, because of the
way those courses are calculated, an astounding grade point average of over
4.2.
I don’t at all fault parents for
trying to give their children whatever support they can. Poor parents would do
the same if they could. And those students coming into UCLA had to work very
hard for a long time to achieve their records. But I want to consider two
things, and they’re in line with Reardon’s argument, I believe.
The first is how utterly unfair this
state of affairs is for children at the lower end of the income distribution.
No matter how hard their parents try and how diligent their teachers are and
how much determination (or the new buzzword “grit”) they have, they do not have
access to the material and social resources that are increasingly commonplace
for more affluent kids—and available in abundance for the wealthy. I know of so
many cases of well-to-do parents who are not only sending their children to the
most expensive private schools, but are also providing every technological enhancement
on the market, a stream of tutors, counselors, and coaches, and enrichment
experiences beyond my parents’ imagination. In addition to all that, their
children get the ongoing benefit of their parents’ and their parents’ friends’
knowledge and contacts.
A few months ago I was in a
restaurant sitting close by a man and his daughter’s boyfriend, a college
junior or senior preparing for law school. The man was a lawyer who, it seemed,
was somehow involved in the accreditation or ranking of law schools. I didn’t
have to strain to hear, for the guy was not shy, and his voice carried as he
ticked off the top law schools, dissecting the rankings of and inside scoop for
each, what they were looking for, who he knew. I couldn’t help but think of
several students at a central city community college I’d been visiting, bright
idealistic young people who want to go to law school. Those students and the
young man alongside me aren’t even in the same city, let alone the same
ballpark, of information about legal study. The rich have always gotten richer,
privilege has always been passed to privilege, but Reardon’s point—and I’m
merely extending it beyond early schooling—is that the wealthy in America are
investing in their kids—and investing
is the key word here—on an unprecedented scale.
***
Growing economic and educational
inequality is clearly bad news for low income parents and their children, but
I’ve been thinking for a while about the effect this high-pressure scramble for
academic advantage has on all of us. If you’ll indulge me once more, I want to
offer a passage from Lives on the Boundary in which I try to consider
this broader picture.
“As I talk with middle-class parents
about the education of their children, I’m struck by the stress they’re under:
the searching and searching for the best school, the calculation of what it
will cost and the projected expense for a long time to come, the agonized
weighing of this expense against one’s prospects, one’s job security, the mix
of anxiety and anger—often just below the surface—that this set of
circumstances engenders.
Also, I wonder what happens more
generally in the culture as the unfolding of childhood gets so enmeshed with
packaged acceleration programs and expensive educational environments and
services. Cognitive development becomes commodified and fussed over, cultivated
as deliberately and delicately as an orchid in a hothouse. The love and
nurturance of one’s children gets confused with and determined by an anxiety
over intellectual growth, defined in quite particular and capital-intensive
ways.
The children, as many social
commentators have observed, come to feel the pressure, the fear of one misstep,
and the catastrophe that attends a B+ rather than an A. Now, no doubt, some come through this journey
with remarkable educations, but some gain other things as well. There can be a
focus on grades over content, a detachment from rather than engagement with
knowledge itself, knowledge becoming a kind of token to be redeemed for
advancement. There can be a narrowing of curiosity, an aversion to intellectual
risk-taking, for too much is at stake. I have noticed in working with
university freshmen how often the honors students, those with the highest
entering g.p.a s, are wary of trying a new idea in a paper, taking a chance,
seeing where a line of thought will lead them. (I am reminded here of the title
of a recent book, How to Succeed in School Without Really Learning.) And
all of this, this orientation to school and knowledge, contributes to an
isolated autonomy, reinforces an individualist rather than cooperative
orientation to learning and the use of what one learns.
What about poor kids, what happens
to them in a time like this? As a group, the children of the working class have
always had a rougher go of it in our schools. This is the sorrowful educational
outcome of living in an economically stratified society. But achievement
against odds can be fostered or further curtailed by public policy, by
educational practice, and by the spirit of the times. Unfortunately, we have
been moving toward a perfect storm of bad conditions for working-class students.
One element of the storm is the shrinking education budgets and the cutting
back of programs and services. Another is the escalating cost of education. A
third is the amping up of competition for selective schools and the emergence
of pricy services to enhance one’s competitiveness. And a fourth is the
ever-rising bar of admissions criteria, from private kindergartens to public
universities. This is a pretty unforgiving swirl of forces.
What is additionally troubling is
that the current public mood is, itself, pretty unforgiving. The level of
competition, the state of the economy, the anxiety about social position, the
successful shaping of opinion by the political rights—all this has contributed
to a resolute ideology of individual advancement and a suspicion, at times
hostility, toward policies that support equity and a common educational good.
So we have backlash and lawsuits—framed in a rhetoric of merit and justice—against
compensatory efforts and a retreat from the public sphere."
***
Over the past few years, there has
been an increasing call from the federal government, state houses, think tanks,
and philanthropies to increase the rates of college completion, for the U.S. is
lagging behind other industrialized countries. There has been particular
emphasis on science, mathematics, and engineering. If families in the bottom
quarter of U.S. income distribution stay there—and that lack of mobility is
more likely in our time—and if we’re serious about helping more students
succeed in school, then we’ll have to provide the kind of ongoing support for
low-income students that will give them at least a prayer of a chance of
competing on the modestly level playing field we as a nation claim we value.
The kind of early intervention
advocated by Reardon will certainly help the academic preparation of the less
fortunate. But the relation between income and academic success cannot be
comprehensively addressed through a childhood inoculation alone, for academic
inequality, as I’ve suggested, is cumulative and sustained at many points along
the way. This will mean increasing rather than cutting back on compensatory and
enrichment programs, summer academic opportunities, and the like and curbing
the austerity drive that leads colleges to cut staff and hours for tutoring and
other academic support services. That’s how, over the long haul, we might have
a better chance of leaving no unwealthy child behind.
You can share this blog post on Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader through the "share" function located at the top left-hand corner of the blog.
You can share this blog post on Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader through the "share" function located at the top left-hand corner of the blog.
