Who would you bet is more likely to graduate from college? The yet-to-be born children of Chelsea Clinton and Marc Mezvinsky or Tripp Palin, the child already born to Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin, who became pregnant at 17? Therein lies the secret of America's declining educational performance.
The United States, which once led the world, has fallen to twelfth in the percentage of its citizens that graduate from college, according to a column by Bob Herbert in last Friday's New York Times.
The time has come to admit the truth every parent knows -- childrearing today is harder and more expensive than it was in the era in which America rose to prominence. Higher education became less affordable even before the Great Recession forced the states to slash education budgets, and the loss of close knit communities means that parental supervision has become more important in keeping children out of trouble. In our book Red Families v. Blue Families, we explain that "blue families" have responded to this reality by investing more in each child, and encouraging them to wait to have children until they, too, can bring the emotional and financial resources of independent adults to the task. Chelsea and Marc represent the new ideal, and there is every reason to believe that they will have considerable resources to bring to childrearing. Bristol and Levi, in contrast, represent the outcome of a system that preaches abstinence without the foundation of adult supervision, a promising future, or draconian consequences that once made it work. They bring Tripp into a world that simultaneously says having the child and keeping it is an acceptable choice, but you are on your own in dealing with an environment that provides little support for childrearing.
In another era, marriage would have been the answer. Levi would need to get a job, but jobs were plentiful. Today, the lack a high school diploma keeps him out of the electrician's apprentice program in which he tried to enroll, and the alternatives (outside of cashing in the notoriety that comes from his connection to the Palin family) are bleak. In the meantime, he is likely to father (if he hasn't done so already) other children to whom he contributes little support.
In another era, Bristol may have found married life confining, but the stakes for her have become much higher. Teens who marry young face bleaker financial circumstances, and they have always faced high risks of divorce. Over the last twenty years, the overall divorce rate has leveled off, but the chances that young couples like Bristol and Levi will remain married have worsened appreciably and more women, like Bristol, decide that the prospective groom simply doesn't offer enough to make marriage worthwhile.
For Bristol, marriage itself has risks that extend far beyond the discovery that Levi is a cad. If marriage were to make it more likely that she has a second child soon after the first or that she relies on her husband's earnings rather than her own, both her marital happiness and her prospects for life without Levi decline. Two career couples and stay-at-home moms with successful husbands are both doing well; financially stretched couples where the mother has to work because of the father's failure to earn enough to support the family are not -- and working class men now earn less in real dollar terms that they did a generation ago. Many parents, apparently like the Palins, experience relief when their daughters fail to marry the fathers of their children.
All of this magnifies the uncertainties for Tripp's future. The stimulation a child receives during the first three years, and parental ability to provide that interaction, increases with the parents' education and the support the caretaking parent has from others. Single mothers are stretched thin. As the child grows, the child needs medical care, parents who can supervise homework and afterschool activities, love and supervision. College graduates are more likely to be employed in workplaces that offer health insurance, flexible hours, and parental leave, and they are more likely to live in neighborhoods that still have effective public school.
As high school students start to plan for college, those who are most optimistic about their futures are also more likely to remain abstinent (and to use contraception if they don't). And with more students unable to afford the traditional college experience, the odds of keeping less hopeful students on track become more difficult.
While we emphasize that blue states do better than red states in delaying marriage and investing in children, the differences are ones of degree. Sarah Palin is a hero to her constituency because she and Bristol both had inconvenient children rather than resort to abortion. Her supporters realize that the conservative elite more commonly follows the blue prescription -- invest heavily in the children you have and protect them from the youthful temptations that threaten the futures of the next generation. The Tea Partiers just do not believe that their tax dollars should be used to help the children of others; indeed, the Republicans in Congress are blocking efforts to provide emergency funding to prevent teacher lay-offs. The modern economy and the triumph of conservative economics magnify inequality and make the stakes of childbearing that much higher. Hillary -- not Sarah -- is the Mama Grizzly in this story.
Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0.
And the Obamas seem to be following the Clinton's way. It really is no guess as to how this generation and the next will fare.
In a meritocracy, your chances in life would not--and from a purely moral perspective, should not--be materially affected by who your parents are. But equality of opportunity is not a policy goal. Hard work alone is simply not enough to get ahead.
Social mobility is not talked about in the U.S. much. We believe in the myth of American equality. But Americans rank only one place higher than the Brits in measurements of social mobility. Note that GB is country with both a hereditary aristocracy and a royal family. In contrast, countries where incomes are more equal and access to higher education is more readily available, social mobility is higher and so is the happiness of citizens. Studies bear out that social democracies that in places like the Nordic countries, where social mobility is highest, people are happier, live longer, have better health care and educational access.
But Americans feed on the intellectual fast food of Faux News and talk radio. No wonder social mobility is decreasing and wealth is increasingly concentrated at the top. Ordinary Americans do not understand nor vote in their economic best interests.
That is why Tripp Palin may never rise above the lower middle class, and Clinton's grandkids will have greater opportunity than all the Palins combined.
personalities to make your point was right on the button as well!
Class does not come from geography. You are out of line in your comment. You may not like these people personally, but it's irresponsible to paint them in this manner.
You are sooo in the money
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC-MkKuO7O8
No predicting the future, because it always surprises. Chelsea's child could be born defective for all you two know. And speaking of Red vs. Blue families, how many children of both black and white 'blue' families are born out of wedlock or raised by single mothers in broken families? Much higher ratio than 'red' families, I'll bet. How's that social experimentation working out?
I have family living in red states and let me assure you that there is no lack of children born out of wedlock or couples divorcing when they have young children in those states.
Smart,educated , sofisticated mother ----> smart educated sofisticated dauther
Superficial, uneducated, unsofisticated mother ----> superficial unsofisticated dauther
That simple
issues based on lots more than "face" value. Being good looking doesn't make you smart, wise, compassionate or caring.
The biggest problem with birth control is all the wrong people use it, in my opinion. If you look around, more than half the time the people with 5 or 6 kids ought to have none, and about half the time those with 2 or less are the kind of people we need more of.
You know - places where the Dems in politics and the education system collect and use some of the highest amounts of money for education?
Graduation rates:
Detroit 21.7%
New York City 38.9%
Milwaukee 43.1%
Los Angeles 44.2%
Chicago 52.2%
Philadelphia 55.5%
I'd wager that these cities spend a ton of tax money on education (more accurately, on teachers salaries and benefits).... yet all but one of the above listed locations has a graduation rate below 50%.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-06-20-dropout-rates_x.htm#grad
Lets all beat up the Palin kid, she is only 17 and an easy target!
if you are so sorry for young people like Bristol (primarily those who do not have her family's - I repeat, her family's, money - in contrast to money she makes); then, you would certainly back the social structures that help them. Most likely, you do not have any sympathy or empathy for them and only hate on this article because it is the late great Sarah Palin's daughter being spoken of.
How about speaking about Chelsea Clinton? A young woman the right would seem to want to hold forth as a role model (college graduate, married before children, etc.). Since when did the right start holding forth unwed mothers as the ideal and a young woman who advances herself and waits until marriage to have children as the least desirable. I really don't get it.
You have brought up a point that I have been wondering about myself. I have talked with several people who, when discussing the children of famous people like the Clintons and the Bushes and Palins, will bring up NOT what the child has accomplished as in Chelsea's case, but what her FATHER did and/or MOTHER did. When it comes to the Bush kids, any mention of their teenage years with underage drinking etc. was dismissed as "being kids." When discussing Palin's daughter, Bristol, they talk about how good the family is, how Palin is a decent person and god-fearing BUT say that Bristol made a mistake and is going to prove to be the good woman her mother is.
Go figure.............
However, kids from "normal" households are denied taking such risks; they generally have one shot at something & that's it. should they fail? Well, tough luck. They have to play by a totally different set of rules.
Money, by itself, does not guarantee anything, if other solid values are not there.
Now the Palins have money. But, they are still the barely educated, unsophistocated people they were before.
I don't see that their sudden wealth has suddenly given Sarah, Todd, or any of their kids any class.
The YouTube performance of Sarah, her husband and her younger daughter, Willow, interacting with a teacher who asked reasonable questions was a real eye-opener.
I enjoyed the article.