Why Urban School Districts Make Easy Targets

In Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life (2003), Annette Lareau compares the parenting styles of middle-class families to that of working class and poor parents. I’ve written about her work before.

According to Lareau, one characteristic of working class and poor parents which would make them easy targets for the school privatization movement is that this group does not have the same type of social competencies as middle class parents. Lareau describes how these different competencies affect the types of interactions which the parents have with their children’s schools, for instance, working class and poor parents:

• are less likely to customize interactions to suit their preferences
• accept actions of persons in authority, but at times covertly resist them
• are sometimes not as aware of children’s school situation
• may resist school rules as unreasonable
• have trouble getting “the school” to respond to their needs
• give a lesson in powerlessness and frustration in the face of an important institution
• are generally unable to make the rules work in their favor when they confront the institution

Because middle class parents rear their children in a “concerted cultivation” model, succeeding generations are instilled with a sense of entitlement. Working class and poor parents rear their children according to a “natural growth” model, which perpetuates a sense of constraint in their succeeding generations.

Nearly completely absent in education reform discussions is how schools could be improved by building stronger ways to foster a greater sense of entitlement in working class and poor families, as well as to guide them in ways to effectively implement it. This would be especially challenging to do with those who have experienced living under a weak or non-existent democratic model, or who have limited English-speaking abilities, but it would not be impossible and this is what the venture philanthropists should be spending their money on. Increased civic engagement on the part of parents would certainly provoke a greater bureaucratic response on the part of their school districts. Parents who feel empowered and competent who are advocating for change can accomplish a lot. Remember the Chinese fishing proverb?

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.

Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

But because building a greater sense of mastery for parents has not been sufficiently nurtured, and has even been sabotaged and discouraged by school bureaucracies, a door has been opened wide for the outside privatization forces to insert themselves into those communities. This is evident in the expansion of “we want your child, but we don’t need your input" charter schools. And as this feature is getting more and more firmly rooted in the ground, any and all remaining levels for an opportunity for true community engagement is being entirely wiped out. With school boards being abolished, no elections will be held, and no meetings will be conducted to invite public input. School enrollment is depending more and more on how successfully schools can market themselves to working class and poor parents, with pretty imprinted pencils, glossy color brochures and glowing promises.

The popular explanation of how it this all going to sort itself out is that parents “will vote with their feet.” This method causes an awful lot of disruption, as unhappy parents who don't have a say in how things are run, yank their kids out mid-year and wander over to the next school. Most parents would be perfectly happy if their children could stay put, if their input was regularly solicited, if their comments actually listened too, and if they were made to feel that they were respected and that their views were considered to be valid. This doesn’t happen enough in today’s school bureaucracies, and it hasn't for years. But it is entirely excluded when there is a top-down regime operating from afar, such as is the case with Oakland’s largest charter school provider, Aspire Public Schools. The members of its board of directors hail from far reaching communities, big businesses, and venture capital organizations, and none of them have anything to do with the People of Oakland. A middle class community would never permit its public schools to be run this way.

So along these lines, there was an interesting segment on The World the other day (12/9/09). Anchor Marco Werman spoke with Christian Science Monitor correspondent Fred Weir in Moscow about the Russian culture of accountability. Weir has been living in Russia for 23 years. The story pertained to the Russia’s culture of corruption, indifference and fatalism in relation to the tragic nightclub fire:

I think it’s an age old problem, probably because people are disconnected, and always have been, from authority and the means of getting things done. You know it’s very common for people in Russian to say, “Well nothing depends on me.” I think that’s part of the story and the corruption comes also from just an unaccountable bureaucracy. They’re not elected, they’re not transparent, they’re not susceptible to public pressure and they tend to use their positions – and this is an age old thing in Russia again – to enrich themselves…

…Russia has never had a functioning democracy. It doesn’t have the civil society, the kinds of unity avenues by which people, say in the United States, do insert themselves in the process, again not perfect, but you have so many different ways if you are an individual in a Western country to express yourself, be heard, to at least take a shot rhetorically at an official who you feel has wronged you.

You have so many different ways [in the U.S.] that just don’t exist in Russia, and never did. And this, of course, leads to the sense of impunity on the part of bureaucrats and officials who just don’t feel any need to respond to public pressure.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

...[change] involves actually changing that bureaucracy, dragging them out into the open, making them publicly accountable, having elections that are truly competitive and which would allow opposition figures perhaps to come into power. You know, allowing people in their communities to show initiative runs the risk of them challenging authority, and this is where Russian reformers always tend to draw the line after they’ve made these wonderful speeches. They want the country to modernize, but they don’t want opposition to form. They don’t want real, independent initiatives to take place, and that’s the conundrum that we always see.

Urban areas don’t need more charter schools and more passivity; this is a wrong and dangerous direction to take. For our democracy to stay strong, we need to start building the capacity of people to become regularly and effectively engaged. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is alarmed at the loss of civics instruction in school over recent years. She said:

... public education is the only long-term solution to preserving an independent judiciary and, more importantly, to preserving a robust constitutional democracy,” she said. “The better educated our citizens are, the better equipped they will be to preserve the system of government we have. And we have to start with the education of our nation’s young people. Knowledge about our government is not handed down through the gene pool. Every generation has to learn it, and we have some work to do.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

One unintended effect of the No Child Left Behind Act, which is intended to help fund teaching of science and math to young people, is that it has effectively squeezed out civics education because there is no testing for that anymore and no funding for that,” she said. “And at least half of the states no longer make the teaching of civics and government a requirement for high school graduation. This leaves a huge gap, and we can’t forget that the primary purpose of public schools in America has always been to help produce citizens who have the knowledge and the skills and the values to sustain our republic as a nation, our democratic form of government.

Related concerns are also expressed by James Boyd White in Part one of his essay, “Law, economics, and torture”. White is a law professor, literary critic, scholar and philosopher who has been teaching at the University of Michigan since 1983:

As the government withdraws from the regulation of the economy, as it has been doing for decades now, its place is taken by private individuals or private organizations which have immense power over the lives of all of us.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The rhetoric supporting this movement speaks of government as the enemy, and the market as freedom for us all. But the power that is created by the disparity of wealth is real power and, unlike governmental power, it is not shaped or guided by law and democracy. Corporate owners and managers are not elected by the people, not subject to the constitution, not supposed – or even allowed – to be motivated by any ideal other than the acquisition of wealth and power, and usually not responsive to argument or complaint.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The consumer dream of our culture teaches us that we have no responsibility, no capacity for action, no right to demand meaning in our work and lives, and no obligation for the welfare of others. It induces the sense of learned helplessness I referred to earlier—which is exactly the opposite of the kind of vigorous independence and competence upon which democracy depends.

And in discussing propaganda and advertising, White says

…one characteristic of both forms is that nothing is meant, everything is said for the moment, all on the assumption that the people who make up the audience have no memory and no capacity for critical thought. A world is created where thought is not possible. In neither domain—the consumer economy or the world of politics and government—are we defined as responsible participants in a world of shared life and action. Rather, we are manipulated objects of an empire.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

…the reason we do not rebel at the immense and unfair transfer of wealth, and all that is associated with it…is that in some sense we do not believe that we really have democracy at all any more, at least in the sense in which we once thought we did.

With restricted autonomy and “learned helplessness,” calling ourselves a democracy is a falsehood. To make our public schools better and to keep our democracy strong, this is the situation we need to begin to reverse, and quickly.

Different kinds of parents

During the seven years I worked as a Parent Coordinator at a large middle school in Oakland that served many low income kids (about 550 kids, or around 62%), I learned how some parents behave in relation to their children’s schools, and to their children’s educations in general. For instance:

· One parent urinated on the floor in a school’s restroom because she was angry with the school.

· Quite a few parents take their kids out of the country for several weeks in the middle of the school year. They do this even though their children end up missing 15 to 20 days of instruction.

· A parent blocked a residential driveway with her car while she was waiting to pick up her child. When the school’s neighbor arrived and asked her to move, the parent called her “bitch.”

· One parent came to the school, hunted down one of her daughter’s classmates on the blacktop, and then she and her daughter began to beat up that child. They did not stop when the security officer intervened. When the assistant principal intervened, the parent also hit her, broke her eyeglasses, and then sped off in a car.

· Some parents who come in to conduct school business are drunk and reeking of alcohol.

· Some parents angrily reply, “I ain’t joining no PTA!” when asked by other parents at registration if they would like to do so.

· One parent had her children stay at a relative’s house many miles away. Her 13-year-old daughter was left responsible for transporting herself to her middle school, and her two much younger siblings to their elementary school, alone and by bus. All three kids showed up at the middle school at 11 a.m. The daughter had given up with trying to get the younger ones to their school.

· Some parents think it is acceptable if their children call White teachers “bitch” but warn their children to never do the same with Black teachers.

· There are parents who tell their children that they should beat up other kids. There are parents who give the principal permission to hit their children.

· One grandparent publicly beat his adolescent grandson with a belt in the front driveway of the school. That kid was in prison two years later.

· There are parents who have no idea when the school year begins. They bring their children in one or two weeks after the school year has already started.

· One parent came to the school and was upset because their child has received an “F” in math. She screamed at the math teacher, “You’re the teacher. You’re the one that’s supposed to be teaching them!” There was a complete disconnect re: the student's responsibility.

· Some parents absolutely refuse to permit their children to see a psychologist even though their children’s teachers are advising it because they are observing possible severe emotional problems. The parents are not refusing because of financial reasons; the school provides this service for free.

· Despite information being mailed home, some parents still have no idea what grades their children are receiving.

· One parent spit sunflower seed shells all over the carpeted floor of the principal’s office when they came in to meet with her.

· There are parents who are in and out of jail and who intentionally train their children how to steal things from other people.

· Some parents who are members of violent gangs will have their children join the gang, too.

· One parent was talking very loudly at a school music performance and became very angry and confrontational when she was asked to be quiet by another parent in the audience.

· One parent provided a cell phone to her daughter and permitted her to wear a grill (teeth ornament). When that child failed multiple eighth grades classes, the parent threatened to take those things away. No consequences were ever given, though. The girl dropped out of high school after the following year.

· Some parents have homes where the TV is constantly on, but not a single book other than the Bible can be found in the house.

· Some parents just throw the school newsletter in the garbage can and “never bother to read it,” according to their children.

· A number of parents will never come in for special school meetings with teachers even though they are asked to attend because their child is in danger of being retained.

· Some parents come to the school two weeks before the end of the school year and are absolutely irate. They are angry because they have just learned that their children will not be allowed to graduate from middle school because of failing multiple classes all year long.

· Some parents are either oblivious, or in denial, about the fact that their children are gang members, even though the warning signs have been there for months and assistant administrators have had talks with them about it.

· One parent “helped” with a yearbook project, collected thousands of dollars from students, and then disappeared with the money.

· Some parents never, ever attend back-to-school night or any other school event.

· One parent asked her husband to turn off the home TV in the evening so that their kids could concentrate on homework. He absolutely refused because he wanted to watch TV.

· Two parents were completely dismissive of the fact that their daughter was getting a master’s degree. They told her that she was only wasting her time by going to college and thought she should just go get a job.

· One parent had to call the police because an ex- spouse with a drug addiction was breaking down a door to get into her house. On the morning of their first day of school, the four kids watched as their father got arrested in front of their house.

In the capacity of my work, I became acquainted with this type of behavior on a regular basis. Dealing with it, and the consequences of it, is one of the immense challenges that these schools must face. The average behavior of parents was not this extreme, but this type of behavior was not atypical. In a middle-class school, this type of parent behavior would be rare.

I would occasionally observe some low income parents exhibiting behavior at the other extreme. For instance, one mother was so bothered by a small error on her child’s otherwise perfect attendance record that she found her child’s schoolwork from that day, brought it in as proof of her child’s attendance, and insisted to have the error officially corrected.

Having observed incident after incident, and knowing that the behaviors are indicators of home values and parenting abilities, I find it impossible to believe that schools – on their own, with the resources currently allotted to them – will be able to sufficiently counter most of the attitudes that children learn in their homes and/or be able to adequately compensate for the things that parents are unable to provide.

As always, if you are interested in learning more, I suggest you read Annette Lareau (who describes the difference in parenting styles of middle class and poor/working class families and how these styles affect the behavioral outcomes of their children), Richard Rothstein (who looks at numerous other studies about family functioning as it relates to children's ability to learn) and Elijah Anderson (who describes behaviors typical in “street” (vs. “decent”) low income Black families and tells how fourth graders with a “street” orientation have already started to tune out of school).

Different Childrearing Styles

When I was working in the Parent Center at my local middle school, we did our best to notify parents about upcoming school meetings. Attractive, multilingual notices were sent home, notices were given multiple times, advance notice was given, even multilingual calls were made for the most important meetings. Time after time, year after year, the parent turnout at the meetings was pitiful.

People would tell me it was because so many parents were working, but then I would look around at the handful of parents at a PTA meeting and realize that almost all of those parents were working, too, so that didn't seem to be the complete answer.

People would tell me it was because parents didn't speak English, but then I would think about the demographics* and realize that at least 50% of the parents were native English speaking, 450+ families that is, and so that didn't seem to provide the answer, either.

I tried not to take it personally (because I was White while the majority of the parent body was not), but I just couldn't figure it out. I felt frustrated because I wanted things to get better and I didn't know how to make it happen. The usual techniques were falling flat!

Because I needed it to make sense, I began a personal quest several years ago so I could understand this phenomenon. I discovered a book that has provided me with some of the answers, “Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life” by Annette Lareau (2003).

If you are a middle class person interested in understanding poor and working class families, you should read this book. Then you should reflect on how you personally approach childrearing, in actuality or in your mind's eye. Your middle class assumptions about how it is "supposed to be done" will become apparent to you.

Here are a few of my notes from Chapter 1 to give you an idea of what Lareau has identified.

Point #1: Lareau has determined that there is a “cultural logic of childrearing” that differs between the social classes.

Middle class parents:

• For middle class parents, less effort is needed to provide basic support (food, housing, transportation, and other necessities).
• The parenting style of middle class parents results in concerted cultivation of the child.
• Middle class parents create and provide a steady diet of organized activities for their children. These activities stimulate the child’s development and foster cognitive and social skills.
• Middle class children miss out on leisure time and kin relationships.
• Middle class parents make sure their children have experiences that cultivate their talents and give them any opportunity that might contribute to their advancement.
• Middle class parents talk more with their children. This develops greater verbal agility, produces larger vocabularies and creates more familiarity with abstract concepts. They learn to question adults and address them as relative equals. Children become more comfortable with authority figures. The emphasis is on reasoning.

Working class and poor parents

• For working class and poor parents, more effort is needed to provide basic support (food, housing, transportation, and other necessities).
• The parenting style of working class and poor parents results in natural growth of the child.
• Children experience long stretches of leisure time and child initiated play.
• Working class and poor parents do not create and provide a steady diet of organized activities for their children.
• Extended family typically lives nearby. Children are likely to have daily interactions with kin.
• Working class and poor parents do not consider the concerted development of children an essential aspect of good parenting.
• Working class and poor parents create clear boundaries between themselves and their children. They tell their children what to do rather than persuade them with reason. The crucial responsibilities of parenthood do not include eliciting children’s feelings, opinions and thoughts. The emphasis is on directives.

Point #2: Because of the differences in parenting styles, children from different social classes develop different types of social competencies.

Middle class children

• learn the “rules of the game” that govern interactions with institutional representatives (eye contact, shaking hands, etc.)
• learn by imitation and training how to make rules work in their favor.
• learn to share information and ask for attention.

Children whose parents adopt strategies of concerted cultivation appear to gain a sense of entitlement.

Working class and poor children

• learn to have less eye contact than middle class children when conversing.
• learn to be unobtrusive and subordinate when they are around adults.
• learn to organize their leisure time because it is in their control. They spend long periods of time away from adults.

Children whose parents adopt strategies of natural growth appear to gain a sense of constraint.

I will periodically refer to Lareau's findings because they reveal so much. In the meantime, I have questions about the future of public education.

As Lareau discovered, middle class parents talk more with their children. Their children develop greater verbal agility, larger vocabularies and more familiarity with abstract concepts. These children learn to question adults and address them as relative equals. They become more comfortable with authority figures. The emphasis is on reasoning.

On the other hand, working class and poor parents create clear boundaries between themselves and their children. They tell their children what to do rather than persuade them with reason. The crucial responsibilities of parenthood do not include eliciting children’s feelings, opinions and thoughts. The emphasis is on directives.

The two approaches to childrearing, and the two outcomes manifested in the children, are very different.

Question #1: Can middle class kids and working class/poor kids have their educational needs met at one school, or do they need to be placed in two different schools where their two different educational needs can be best addressed?

Question #2: If kids are kept together and if the school wants to be effective for both sets of students, how should they do it -- blend the two approaches, dovetail them, or place them side-by-side?

Question #3: If children from different social classes are separated from each other to maximize the attainment of their educations, what does that do to the concept of "public education" and what effect will it have on the ability of Americans to relate to different groups within our society over the long run?

*The school's demographics during this time were: Asian=26%, Latino=24%, African American=38%, White=8%, Free/Reduced Price Lunch=63%, student enrollment=906+ (2004 figures)