Page 195 - Šolsko polje, XXVIII, 2017, no. 3-4: Education and the American Dream, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 195
book review
Similarly – I have to bring this up since it is presented as a powerful pre-
dictor of how children will fare as they develop – there are family din-
ners. Putnam quotes his source that youths who ate dinner with their par-
ents at least five times a week, “did better across a range of outcomes: they
were less likely to smoke, to drink, to have used marijuana, to have been in
a serious fight, to have had sex . . . or to have been suspended from school,
and they had higher grade point averages and were more likely to say they
planned to go on to college”. This is again an example of troubles with the
interpretation. Besides, it might give the impression that this is causal, not
perhaps correlational. I find such categories particularly upsetting – fam-
ily meal does not have to be a pleasant event – the line of thought should
be developed further as to what these meals actually stand for (caring par-
ents, caregivers or important adults, economic stability aka enough mon-
ey to provide for regular meals, etc.).
Let us turn now to the school part of inequality. As reported by Putnam:
in terms of enrolment in early childhood education the United States
ranks 32nd among the 39 countries in the OECD, which is a low rank con-
sidering the importance of preschool education. But the “opportunity
gap” is said to be already large by the time children enter kindergarten,
which the author connects to the gaps in cognitive achievement by lev-
el of maternal education. Schooling, he claims, plays a minor role in cre-
ating score gaps. This could again be a very controversial terrain: mater-
nal sensitivity and nurturance as almost a sole factor to influence a life of
a child.9 But “regardless of their own family background, kids do better
in schools where the other kids come from affluent, educated homes. This
pattern appears to be nearly universal across the developed world”. That is
why Putnam names the American public school today an echo chamber:
the advantages or disadvantages that children bring with them to school
have effects on other kids. This is connected to the so called neighbour-
some latest “endeavours” to end virtually all family planning (disclaimer: it sounds as some-
thing taken out of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale): a new Missouri bill would
target abortion providers and sanction employment and housing discrimination against
people who use birth control or have an abortion … In other words, if the bill is passed, you
could be evicted in the state of Missouri for having an abortion, using birth control, or
becoming pregnant while unmarried.
9 The point where I really hold a grudge against the author is his using the experiments in
rats (how mother rats nurture their newborns and how often) as a proof that “providing
physical and emotional security and comfort” can make a great difference in children’s
lives (to which I of course totally agree). Such experiments in e. g. in apes have been ana-
lysed critically by feminist researchers of science, especially Donna Haraway, who explains
this laboratory-induced psychopathology as particularly dangerous to social world as
it invariably deals with mother-infant relations and defines a “natural” motherhood (see
Haraway, 1989). It is quite agonizing to read about pain induced to laboratory animals in
psychological experiments.
193
Similarly – I have to bring this up since it is presented as a powerful pre-
dictor of how children will fare as they develop – there are family din-
ners. Putnam quotes his source that youths who ate dinner with their par-
ents at least five times a week, “did better across a range of outcomes: they
were less likely to smoke, to drink, to have used marijuana, to have been in
a serious fight, to have had sex . . . or to have been suspended from school,
and they had higher grade point averages and were more likely to say they
planned to go on to college”. This is again an example of troubles with the
interpretation. Besides, it might give the impression that this is causal, not
perhaps correlational. I find such categories particularly upsetting – fam-
ily meal does not have to be a pleasant event – the line of thought should
be developed further as to what these meals actually stand for (caring par-
ents, caregivers or important adults, economic stability aka enough mon-
ey to provide for regular meals, etc.).
Let us turn now to the school part of inequality. As reported by Putnam:
in terms of enrolment in early childhood education the United States
ranks 32nd among the 39 countries in the OECD, which is a low rank con-
sidering the importance of preschool education. But the “opportunity
gap” is said to be already large by the time children enter kindergarten,
which the author connects to the gaps in cognitive achievement by lev-
el of maternal education. Schooling, he claims, plays a minor role in cre-
ating score gaps. This could again be a very controversial terrain: mater-
nal sensitivity and nurturance as almost a sole factor to influence a life of
a child.9 But “regardless of their own family background, kids do better
in schools where the other kids come from affluent, educated homes. This
pattern appears to be nearly universal across the developed world”. That is
why Putnam names the American public school today an echo chamber:
the advantages or disadvantages that children bring with them to school
have effects on other kids. This is connected to the so called neighbour-
some latest “endeavours” to end virtually all family planning (disclaimer: it sounds as some-
thing taken out of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale): a new Missouri bill would
target abortion providers and sanction employment and housing discrimination against
people who use birth control or have an abortion … In other words, if the bill is passed, you
could be evicted in the state of Missouri for having an abortion, using birth control, or
becoming pregnant while unmarried.
9 The point where I really hold a grudge against the author is his using the experiments in
rats (how mother rats nurture their newborns and how often) as a proof that “providing
physical and emotional security and comfort” can make a great difference in children’s
lives (to which I of course totally agree). Such experiments in e. g. in apes have been ana-
lysed critically by feminist researchers of science, especially Donna Haraway, who explains
this laboratory-induced psychopathology as particularly dangerous to social world as
it invariably deals with mother-infant relations and defines a “natural” motherhood (see
Haraway, 1989). It is quite agonizing to read about pain induced to laboratory animals in
psychological experiments.
193
