Part 2: http://tinyurl.com/pxxoejvPart 3: http://tinyurl.com/o7od67w Part 4: http://tinyurl.com/poaa345
I see Our Kids as central to understanding contemporary exigencies regarding education policy and essential to building and actualizing an egalitarian social justice agenda. I see and hope to reveal connections to education and schooling, education reform, and my own experiences.
Part 5; Chapter Two: “The American Dream: Myths and
Realities” – Families (1 of 2)
“Families,” the second chapter of Robert Putnam’s Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis,
unfolds via the formula established in chapter one: People and families from
the same area are profiled and extrapolations to national trends are made based
on what the case studies reveal at the local and national levels. Putnam leaves
Ohio to focus on Bend, Oregon, in the early going. Bend experienced rapid growth,
especially between 1970 and 2000, and segregation in Bend “is mostly economic,
not racial” (47) as Putnam says it is in many other cities. In the east of
Bend, child poverty rates are ten times what they are to the west. Bend’s
disparities appear to be the results of the housing bubble. Putnam transitions
from the city’s history to talk about the current “life chances” afforded Bend’s
children and the structures of many of its families (49). “Family differences,”
he says, “produce very different starting points for rich and poor kids” (49)
in Bend and nationwide.
 |
| Putnam extols the stability of 1950s American marriage and life, but they were not without their problems. |
Indeed, a major point in this chapter is that “poverty
produces family instability, and family instability produces poverty” (74).
Likewise, affluence and family stability appear to correlate. Putnam sets the
framework for an important discussion on the role that stress plays in keeping
poor Americans moving backwards even as they strive to move toward greater
social mobility and economic opportunity, but that component comes to a head in
later chapters. Nonetheless, the undercurrent’s import merits attention.
In further discussion of the history of changing family dynamics,
which have “restricted along class lines over the last half century” (61), Putnam
comes dangerously close to suggesting a politically conservative ethic that
could distance him from liberal or progressive readers. He notes the 1970s as a time when “family
structure suddenly collapsed” (62) and informs that this was when the Baby
Boomers were coming of age. Among the factors challenging previous family
dynamics are a delinking of sex and marriage, the feminist revolution, women
entering the workforce, and increased attention on the individual and “self-fulfillment”
at the expense of community (62). While scholars are of multiple minds about
the exact causes of the transformation, an “unexpected outcome” has been the
emergence of familial trends along class lines. Putnam calls this a “two-tier” (63-64)
structural pattern:
1.
Neo-traditional Pattern:
a.
Generally the college-educated “upper-third of American
Society”
b.
Both partners work outside the home
c.
Marriage and childbearing is delayed until
careers are started
d.
Domestic duties are more-evenly shared than in
the 50s.
e.
Divorce rates have fallen and stabilized since
the 70s
2.
Kaleidoscopic Pattern/”Fragile Families” Pattern
a.
Generally the high-school-educated “lower third
of the population”
b.
Less likely to have two-parent households
c.
Two-parent households often include
step-relatives
d.
Childbearing and marriage disconnected; children
may be born before or without partners marrying.
e.
Sexual partnerships less durable
f.
Marriages less durable; divorce rates rising
One might easily consider these lists and wonder about
access to contraceptives and cultural value systems regarding their use. “Delayed
parenting helps kids because older parents are generally better equipped to
support their kids, both materially and emotionally” (64), says Putnam. Early
sexual activity may be the brew in which future family poverty stews.
Non-college educated women are sexually active earlier than their
college-educated peers but do not seek to have more kids than those peers; they
are less likely to use birth control and to have abortions and have more unintended
pregnancies.
 |
| Could a class-centric approach to sex education revolutionize how it is taught? Likewise, can a sex education approach to examining social class and economic inequity afford a means of examining pertinent topics with American teens? |
In the same way that one might read this chapter as a wholesale endorsement
of 1950s American family life – not without its own problematic patterns and narrow-mindedness
– one might read part of this chapter as placing the blame for class divisions
on women. Neither assumption reflects an accurate representation of Putnam’s
goals, but those who are invested in nontraditional notions of partnership and
marriage and those who advocate for women’s rights may work to trust in that
fact throughout this chapter.
What I see, however, is the need to have conversations in
the secondary classroom on the facts and conjectured facts this chapter offers,
perhaps as part of sex education, perhaps as part of current events or American
History.
As a lifelong educator reading about the confusion among
researchers regarding what to make of the breakdown of family structures and
all the emphasis/potential responsibilities placed on girls and/or elements
within young women’s control if they are empowered enough to note these trends
and possible causes, I can’t help but think that part of the problem in not
changing these inequities is that schools do not talk about these issues enough
(or at all) , and abstinence-only programs in schools seem all the more blind
to realities – and worse, instruments that reify the class patterns.
I admit it seems unfair to women to draw conclusions that
put so much of a burden on their shoulders, but it is true that childbirth is a
universal burden particular to women’s lives and bodies, so perhaps this is a
logical weighting. As the father of young sons – and as someone who entered the
word as the son of a teenage mother and father – I know boys need to hear these
facts and be cognizant of all the ramifications of how they treat young women
and can influence their bodies and lives.
While educators and teacher educators work admirably to
craft conversations about race, gender, ethnicity, and sexuality into K12
classrooms, they often struggle about how to talk about class and socioeconomic
divisions. Teachers know how to make classes multicultural spaces regarding
color and gender and have learned how to have conversations in which a person
with certain demographic traits is not seen as representing all people with
those similar traits.
 |
| One's economic class is a cultural element of one's life too, but are Americans too afraid or ashamed to talk about poverty and socioeconomic diversities and inequalities in K12, higher education, and teacher education settings? Are we better equipped to talk about race, gender, ethnicity and sexuality than we are to talk about upward mobility and economic equity? Of course, all these issues are inter-related. |
Teachers are less educated and less comfortable
discussing realities of poverty, especially in the face of actual poor students.
Such is the stigma associated with being poor in American society and the
schools which represent and recreate it. It’s hard to know how or where to
start.
My advice to teachers is this: “Families” and the information
within it offer excellent points of entry into discussions on poverty, family,
class, and burdens of responsibility among young people and society. Find ways
to integrate this chapter into your curriculum. This chapter represents a great
place to start.
Educators, share Our Kids with your kids.
Next: Whatever and Ever, Amen?
No comments:
Post a Comment