Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis

“Over and over again members of the class of 1959 use the same words to describe the material conditions of our youth: ‘We were poor, but we didn’t know it.”

Economic insecurity, family instability, neighborhood distress, and financial and organizational barriers were less important in the 1950s, according to the author, and therefore the poorer kids in his class did not consider themselves poor. Neighborhoods and schools were less segregated by class, and therefore those who were poorer were still exposed to opportunities that are less available today outside of the upper and middle classes.

“Do youth today coming from different social and economic backgrounds in fact have roughly equal life chances, and has that changed in recent decades?”

This is the central question of the book: whether today’s youth have equal opportunity across classes, as they seemed to in the 1950s.

“Less discussed than the growing gaps between affluent and impoverished Americans, but equally insidious, is the fact that the ballooning economic gap has been accompanied by growing de facto segregation of Americans along class lines.”

The families profiled throughout the book exemplify this phenomenon. The parents, and the author’s classmates, frequently describe their lives in cities and towns in which lower-income families lived side by side with wealthier families. Today, this is much less common. The second half of the book outlines the implications of this class segregation for schools and communities and the children in them.

“The underlying issue raised in this book is whether, by contrast, American youth now have the worst of both worlds—low absolute mobility and low relative mobility.”

The aspects of life discussed throughout the book do not always indicate that today’s youth have lower absolute mobility, but they do appear to experience low relative mobility consistently. This contrasts with the relatively high level of both absolute and relative mobility in the 1950s.

“Whatever the reasons, children of less educated parents are increasingly entering the world as an unplanned surprise (complete or not, pleasant or not), while children of more educated parents are increasingly entering the world as a long-planned objective.”

The difference between unplanned and planned children nearly always affects the resources available for raising the children. This is one of the main contrasts between classes today, and it has a cascading effect on child development and later success.

“‘Children having children’ is a significant problem, but it is not the central challenge facing the working-class family in America.”

In this section, the author debunks some myths about increasing numbers of unwed pregnancies and other societal changes. Studies show that women between the ages of 25 and 34 have more unplanned pregnancies and non-marital births than teenagers. As with other differences outlined in the book, more lower-income mothers have unplanned children and non-marital births.

“‘Family values’ conservatives have sometimes argued that liberalism and secularism cause family disintegration. But unwed births and single-parent families are widely distributed across the country, and are concentrated neither in secular areas nor in ‘blue’ states, which presumably have pursued more progressive policies.”

Here, the author debunks a myth about the causes of the decline in marriage. The research shows that lower-class families in all areas, not just “blue” states or cities, experience higher rates of unwed births and single-parent families.

“Paternal incarceration (independent of other facts about a child’s background, like the parents’ education and income and race) is a strong predictor of bad educational outcomes, like getting poor grades and dropping out of school.”

Because paternal incarceration affects educational outcomes, prison reform may be a particularly fruitful type of reform. Policy changes like “three strikes” laws (or eliminating those laws) can make a big difference to the next generation’s opportunities.

“Children pay the cost of early childbearing and multi-partnered fertility in the form of diminished prospects for success in life.”

Children growing up in more unstable environments, such as those who have fragile family units, experience more stress early in life; this affects their development and has continuing effects later in life. They are also likely to repeat the same cycle and therefore suffer more behavioral problems and challenges.

“De facto racial segregation is more pervasive and intense than economic segregation in greater Atlanta, and skin color alone continues to affect residents’ life chances. Nevertheless, the black community itself is increasingly polarized along economic lines.”

Atlanta is one of the featured cities in the book, and this passage identifies two dominant features of Atlanta today: racial and economic segregation. Increasingly, in this and other cities, racial differences seem to have less impact on opportunities than class differences.

“Given limited resources and a challenging environment, strong parental commitment and tough love is sometimes not enough.''

This chapter features Stephanie, a single black working mother in Atlanta, who tries her best to keep her kids on the right track, but two of her four kids are not doing well, despite her best efforts. Limited time and money and the inability to move to an area where her children would have better opportunities mean that her efforts are less successful than they otherwise might be. 

“The bottom line: early life experiences get under your skin in a most powerful way.”

The roots of cognitive and behavioral differences in adults appear to have their roots in experiences at 18 months or even earlier. Neurological development beginning in early childhood has a profound effect on the adult brain which, in turn, affects a person’s aptitude for success.

“The brain, in short, develops as a social organ, not an isolated computer.”

Research shows that brain development requires connecting with adults. These adults are usually parents, but need not be. What is important is that they provide caring, consistent engagement.

“One important implication of this research is that skills acquired early in childhood are foundational and make later learning more efficient.”

More and more studies support the idea that early childhood development is critical to later success. Children who do not develop at the recommended pace because of lack of resources or lack of parental engagement are likely to continue to be behind in their development throughout school, leading to even more negative consequences.

“Stress caused by unstable and consistently unresponsive caregiving, physical or emotional abuse, parental substance abuse, and lack of affection can produce measurable physiological changes in the child that lead to lifelong difficulties in learning, behavior, and both physical and mental health, including depression, alcoholism, obesity, and heart disease.”

As a result of this link between early childhood experiences and later problems, early intervention is critical. 

“Innate resilience can be overrated, however, because the wear and tear of chronic stress can have adverse physiological effects even on kids who seem to be beating the odds.”

This is sometimes called the “John Henry” effect, after the story in which John Henry won a race against a steam-powered drilling machine with his hammer, only to die with his hammer in his hand as his heart gave out. Elijah, one of the lower-income children profiled, experienced at least 8 of the 10 adverse childhood experiences and yet seemed resilient, but the chronic stress he experienced as a child is likely to affect him eventually.

“One broad class difference in parenting norms turns up in virtually all studies: well-educated parents aim to raise autonomous, independent, self-directed children with high self-esteem and the ability to make good choices, whereas less educated parents focus on discipline and obedience and conformity to pre-established rules.”

This may seem counterintuitive, but it is partly because lower-income parents themselves experience higher levels of stress and therefore likely feel that they cannot be as flexible as higher-income parents. This is also likely because lower-income parents try to use these preventive strategies to keep their kids safe.

“With the spread of the internet, TV is being gradually replaced by Web-based entertainment, but the basic fact remains: rich kids get more face time, while poor kids get more screen time.”

The lack of parental attention to lower-income kids is often because those parents must work multiple jobs or longer hours, or because they must contend with other challenges. Less time with kids is likely to lead to deficiencies in their development. Although parents at all income levels are spending more time with their kids today than they did in the 1950s, the increase in time has been greater among higher-income parents, especially as the importance of interaction for early childhood development has become better understood.

“What we usually understand as an impoverished parent’s lack of skills, care, patient, tolerance, attention, and dedication can actually be attributed to the fact that the parent’s mind is functioning under a heavy load.”

Lower-income parents typically do not have the luxury to devote as much quality time to their kids, whereas higher-income parents can either devote themselves or hire others to help. To the extent they are operating with less time and under financial stress, they are unlikely to engage with their kids in a meaningful way consistently.

“Although school quality and resources are unequal between top and bottom socioeconomic schools, once we account for nonschool factors (such as family structure, economic insecurity, parental engagement, and even TV watching), school quality and school resources themselves seem to contribute relatively little to class gaps in test scores and other measures of cognitive and socioemotional skills.”

School quality and school resources themselves may account for very little of the class gaps in test scores, but the other factors identified by the author now differ greatly among classes, and with the greater level of geographic segregation today, lower school quality and limited school resources are likely to go hand-in-hand with a fragile family structure, economic insecurity, less parental engagement, and more television watching.

“Many studies have shown that parental engagement—everything from asking about homework to attending PTA meetings—is associated with higher academic performance, better socioemotional skills, and other facets of student behavior, such as less use of drugs and alcohol.”

Throughout the book, the profiles featuring families in which the parents are engaged in their children’s education also feature children who are on a path to greater success. Lower-income families typically cannot afford to take the time needed to engage with their children’s schooling or even to eat dinner together every night. This limited amount of attention has ripple effects on children’s success in school and in life.

“The American public school today is a kind of echo chamber in which the advantages or disadvantages that children bring with them to school have effects on other kids.”

Increasingly, what children bring to school with them (or experience before they even get to school) has a more profound impact on their lives than the schools themselves. Higher-income students bring mostly advantages with them and therefore have a better school experience than lower-income students.

“If it takes a village to raise a child, the prognosis for American children isn’t good: in recent years, villages all over America, rich and poor, have deteriorated as we’ve shirked collective responsibility for our kids.”

This problem is exacerbated, as explained in this chapter, by the fact that most families cannot afford to replace the services that were formerly provided with private options. In many communities, for example, amenities that used to be provided at no cost are now “pay to play.” Because of the increasing geographical segregation by class, those in the lower class experience much less of this collective responsibility.