The Culture of Parenting

The author, September, 1964

Perhaps every generation looks at its childhood as idyllic. I have idolized my pre-adolecent summers from 1964 to 1974 as a 9AM to 9PM adventure in the Northern California suburban outdoors, mostly playing pickup games of baseball but also hanging out with other boys and hiking in the hills, fighting crayfish and attempting to catch bullfrogs, riding our bikes around town, creating small explosives with match heads, and releasing paper gliders off of kites. I had to conform to two rules: report back for meals and be home before it got dark. My parents did not set up play dates, nor did they supervise any of the activities. No parents on my block did. My father's summers in the 1930s and 1940s were similar, though growing up on the streets of Brooklyn and San Francisco he witnessed considerably more violence and cruelty than I. Skipping forward to the 1990s and beyond, however, my children experienced a quite different style of parenting during their summer break. They participated in organized sports and the games were closely observed by their parents. They were driven to play dates. They never simply left the house without telling me where they were going. They never went out and came back in twelve hours with bruises and bee stings.

Historian Jon Grinspan traces a short history of parenting from the late 19th century to today in the May 31, 2014 New York Times article The Wild Children of Yesteryear (link here). Boys were expected to spend "their childhoods in a rowdy outdoor subculture" to foster a young republican outlook: self-reliant, democratic, striving and entrepreneurial. Late 19th and early 20th century changes, especially the progressive movement, urged laws to protect children. Additionally demographic changes (less children) created more worried parents. The movement to becoming helicopter parents, Grinspan argues, began not in the 1970s but before the McKinley administration.

Parents have becoming more involved in education as well, and what parents think is good for educating kids may not be. Sociologists Keith Robinson and Angel Harris argue that parental involvement in children's education is unnecessary. In the April 12, 2014 NYT article Parental Involvement is Overrated (link here)and in their book, The Broken Compass: Parental Involvement with Children's Education, Robinson and Harris argue that "most forms of parental involvement yielded no benefit to children's test scores or grades, regardless of racial or ethnic background or socioeconomic standing." Occasionally parental involvement did matter, but the research showed it depended on which behavior and which ethnic group. For example, regularly reading to elementary school children benefited white and Hispanic children but not black children. The researchers argue that policy makers need to take into account the factors of behavior, academic outcome, grade level, racial and ethnic background, and socioeconomic standing when advocating for the very few parental involvements that help kids. More simply, though, "parents should set the stage and then leave it." This adage may apply to kids' play lives as well.

Franklin and Winston

Journalist Jon Meacham has written a fascinating memoir in Franklin [Roosevelt]) and Winston [Churchill]: an Intimate Portrait of  an Epic Friendship (2003, Random House, New York). The book should be read by every president that manufactures alliances and manages international conflicts. That would be every one! If our current president had read this book he may not have as quickly characterized Churchill as a reactionary colonialist and removed the Churchill bust from the White House. Churchill was a defender of the British Empire and unwilling to let colonial people have self-determination, but he was also the last European hope against Hitler. His success in lining up American help against the Nazi's, not an easy task in isolationist America, not only saved Britain. Churchill was instrumental in getting the U.S. in the war before it was too late for the free world.

Meacham analyzes the contrasting management styles of Roosevelt and Churchill. Roosevelt was practical, devious, always withholding a part of himself. He controlled his emotions completely, met women he wasn't supposed to see, and could completely compartmentalize his personal and private life from his public duties. He was a fair weather friend--publicly embarrassing and ignoring Churchill when, acting in matters of state as he saw them, he cozied up to Stalin. Roosevelt had utmost faith in his ability to charm anyone, even the Soviet dictator, and had he lived until the end of 1945, he may have been able to convince Stalin to act less aggressively in Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Roosevelt may have reacted less vociferously than Truman to Soviet provocations, keeping tensions between America and the Russians below the boiling point. Right before his death, Roosevelt avoided confrontation and suggested a middle course with Stalin (P.341).

In contrast to FDR, Churchill was a straight shooter, courageous, honest, devoted, warmhearted, magnanimous, and an ornate, brilliant orator. He saw black and white, good and evil, when battling Naziism, and history shows his was the correct attitude, when many in his government wanted to make a negotiated peace with Hitler. He was also prescient in predicting and exposing the nefarious intentions of the Soviet empire after the war was over. Roosevelt was starting to come around to Churchill's view of Stalin when Roosevelt suffered the cerebral hemorrhage that ended his life.

Two themes run through the book that also resonate throughout the history of 20th and 21st century presidents. Should a president campaign as though he is healthy even though he is gravely ill, and how much time does a president need in order to recuperate from the weighty pressures of the office?
Roosevelt had congestive heart failure and  hypertension, which eventually killed him. At some level he knew he was dying but felt he had to lead the war to a successful conclusion, and no one else could have done it as well. The last point is debatable, but it was obvious to all who met him that FDR looked terrible by mid 1944. He looked haggard, had lost weight, and had energy for only four hours of hard work each day, when the war demanded much more time from the leader of the western world. Roosevelt campaigned like a champion in the 1944 election for a fourth term, slogging through a nasty storm in New York City in an open car. The press put the photographs in all the newspapers. He was fine the voters thought or, wanted to think.

John F. Kennedy was also much sicker than voters knew. Despite his chronic ill health he looked like Adonis (according to journalist and newscaster Walter Cronkite) in his critical televised debate with Nixon and governed with youthful vigor. (See my review of Kennedy here.) If voters knew the truth about Kennedy's health would they have voted for him over Nixon? Woodrow Wilson was cursed with chronic ill health before his debilitating stroke near the end of his second term. Running against the athletic and larger-than-life Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, Wilson could not afford to let the American people know he was a frail academic.

Do presidents need to be flying to Camp David, playing golf, attending lavish banquets, and just plain enjoying themselves as much as they do? Presidents are always "on" and Meacham's book gives the reader more respect for the formidable pressures of the office, especially in war time. Older, sicker men need time to recharge, whether it's collecting stamps (FDR) or collecting conquests  vacationing at Hyannis Point (JFK). The American people can rightly ask if a president is vacationing in order to work better or, like a Roman emperor, taking the job for what it's worth in order to enjoy frequent, free and lavish vacations.

How are Teachers Evaluated?

The following is an email I sent to a student who wanted to know what I thought about high school students evaluating teachers.

High school teachers have many stakeholders. From the top down, they include the Federal government (No Child Left Behind Act) which mandates continued test score improvements, the State of California, which tells teachers what to teach, the District, which hires and pays teachers, and the taxpayers (the parents), which support the school district. Those actually being taught, the high school students, have no voice in the process other than choosing which classes to take. Even then there are many mandatory classes, and students can perhaps select a certain teacher, but they cannot avoid the class. Why is that? The State has determined that students must learn certain things, and that the State (thinks it) knows better than the student what those things should be. If the parents disagree, they can homeschool or send their child to a private school, but the students still need to learn certain subjects, like it or not. Since that is the case--students learn information that they may not be interested in (Shakespear, geometry, Reconstruction)--it does not make sense for students to be involved in the teacher assessment process. Should slaves assess their masters? Note, however, that students already evaluate their teachers informally on the internet. Comments I have read on RateMyTeacher.com do not give me confidence that high school students can assess teachers properly (even though I do well there, personally). Additionally, all teachers get a reputation and are sought after or avoided based on these rumors, fair or not. 

 

Teachers are evaluated by principals using fair but strict standards based on equity, preparation, engagement, safety, etc. Most students don't pay much attention to these things but they are the essence of good teaching!

 

I would be more comfortable including student ratings in teacher assessments if they were in elective, not mandatory classes, and answered (on a Likert scale) items such as "does this teacher teach to standards" and "did this class prepare me for a career or college?"

Thanks for the opportunity to respond to your query.

Review of Jim Rogers' Investment Autobiography, Street Smarts

credit: sg.asiatatler.com

Famed investor Jim Rogers has published a book that is part autobiography, part geopolitics, and part investment wisdom. Street Smarts: Adventures on the Road and in the Markets (Crown Publishing, 2013) gives his views on investing, which countries are growing more powerful and which are declining, what America must do to reform its society, and the value of raising children. Despite its wide scope, the book does not meander. Rogers engaged me throughout with his ideas about television (like me, he avoids it), politicians, ethics, and what it takes to succeed.

As an autobiography, the book reveals that Rogers single mindedly tried to understand how markets worked and struggled without pause to do so. He enjoyed learning how the world works, so he was motivated to understand markets as well as wanting not to lose money. He worked on holidays and through weekends. He had few distractions as none of his earlier marriages lasted long or produced children. The picture on the left shows Rogers with his third wife, Paige. He now has two Mandarin-speaking daughters as well. Rogers insists that he was successful because of his ability to think independently and willingness to travel and look at  information sources himself.

The two main themes of the book are the transition to Asia as the economic powerhouse as American leadership declines and "a cyclical shift away from financial firms as a source of prosperity" (P. 5) in favor of producers of real goods, especially foodstuffs. (As an aside, brick and mortar education may be replaced by distance learning, and Rogers predicts many of today's elite universities will go bankrupt.)

Rogers states that the United States needs to do five things to be saved: change the tax system, change the education system, institute health-care and litigation reform, and bring the troops home" (P. 241), but he is doubtful that these reforms will occur because of the power of special interests. He suggests that the legislative branch  no longer meet in Washington, D.C., and instead the representatives and senators should in their local areas and meet virtually, avoiding the power of the special interest groups.

Since Rogers conducts his business dealings ethically and believes his good name is invaluable, I found it interesting that he glosses over human rights violations in many of the leading Asian countries, comparing these problems to those in early America:  lack of real democracy in the early years of the American Republic and the existence of a late 19th-century plutocracy. In other words, according to Rogers the United States committed many of the same sins now found in Asia. I find this comparison unfair as our government has committed crimes of omission (because the Constitution limits its powers) rather than commission, such as throwing people in prison because of their beliefs. Rogers' unwillingness to come to terms with Asian oppression is the weakness of this book. He feels that China, Myanmar, and North Korea will eventually change for the better. So invest today! Despite this flaw, the book is well worth reading.

I have previously recommended Rogers' Investment Biker book to my economics students and will add this book to my list of recommended books as well.

See my previous blogs about North Korea here and food prices here and here.

The Biggest Urbanization Program Ever and Food Prices

Source: NYT

According to the New York Times (link here), China is in the midst of a program to move 250 million people from the countryside to cities, joining the 450 million that already live in Chinese cities. China's goal is to be 70 percent urban, and therefore modernized by 2025. A quarter of a billion people will be watching their ancestral villages return to the earth and are pushed into modernity "replacing small rural homes with high-rises, paving over vast swaths of farmland and drastically altering the lives of rural dwellers"

(China’s Great Uprooting: Moving 250 Million Into Cities, June 15, 2013 New York Times)

The building frenzy is on display in places like Liaocheng, which grew up as an entrepôt for local wheat farmers in the North China Plain. It is now ringed by scores of 20-story towers housing now-landless farmers who have been thrust into city life. Many are giddy at their new lives — they received the apartments free, plus tens of thousands of dollars for their land — but others are uncertain about what they will do when the money runs out.

Aggressive state spending is planned on new roads, hospitals, schools, community centers — which could cost upward of $600 billion a year, according to economists’ estimates. In addition, vast sums will be needed to pay for the education, health care and pensions of the ex-farmers.

While the economic fortunes of many have improved in the mass move to cities, unemployment and other social woes have also followed the enormous dislocation. Some young people feel lucky to have jobs that pay survival wages of about $150 a month; others wile away their days in pool halls and video-game arcades (ibid).

Economically, city dwellers create demand for goods and services and country-dwellers do not.

The primary motivation for the urbanization push is to change China’s economic structure, with growth based on domestic demand for products instead of relying so much on export. In theory, new urbanites mean vast new opportunities for construction companies, public transportation, utilities and appliance makers, and a break from the cycle of farmers consuming only what they produce. “If half of China’s population starts consuming, growth is inevitable,” said Li Xiangyang, vice director of the Institute of World Economics and Politics, part of a government research institute. “Right now they are living in rural areas where they do not consume” (ibid.)

In addition to moving people from rural to urban areas, the Chinese government is trying to get rid of unsightly hamlets and make way for large industrial projects such as dams. My uncle, fresh from a visit to China, writes: 

Mike,

Here are a couple of pictures of Chongqing showing the poorer area that will soon be demolished and replaced by modern high rise apartments. The other [third picture] shows a modern 'village' on the Yangtze River that replaced a village that now is under the river since the dam was completed. 1.5 million people were relocated when they built the dam.

Will this great experiment work? Will China succeed in creating a massive modern economy, dwarfing the demand for goods and services enjoyed in the United States, or will it create a large underclass of unskilled, slum dwellers? I don't know. I will guess, however, that this urbanization program will create greater demand for food. City dwellers tend to eat more animal and processed products, creating more demand for grains, sugars, and other basic foodstuffs. Farmers, rapidly decreasing in number, eat closer to the base of the food chain. I also believe that China's gamble on urbanization will decrease the supply of food. The government is paving over farmland or giving it to local governments and agribusiness. Meanwhile, brilliant investor Jim Rogers writes:

Until prices  reach a point where growing food is profitable, the world's farmers, who are currently aging and dying, are not going to be replaced. Prices must rise, and they will. In recent years, the world has been consuming more food than it has produced. Those inventories that were so high in the 1980s are now historically low, somewhere near 14 percent of consumption. The world is facing drastic shortages. Food prices are on the way up (Rogers, Jim, Street Smarts: Adventures on the Road and in the Markets, Crown Publishing, 2013, P.28).

Look for food prices to increase, whether inflation appears or not. (See my previous blog on this issue here.)

Child Care--When is it Good or Bad for Children?

Child care is a helpful option for adults. It lets them, especially mothers, have more possibilities after choosing to have a child--free time to work or to get a respite away from children. However, under what conditions is child care good or bad for the children? When do children in pre-kindergarten child care have outcomes as good as those raised by a parent or other primary caretaker?  The Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (link here) by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) gives complex answers to these two questions.

Why look at another government study? "The NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD), is the most comprehensive study to date of children and the many environments in which they develop" (P. 6). This longitudinal (16-year), national project studied more than 1,000 children from one-month of age.What are the findings?

On the one hand the NICHD study finds that children "who were cared for exclusively by their mothers did not develop differently than those who were also cared for by others" (P.5). On the other hand, "children with higher quantity (total combined number of hours) of experience in non-maternal child care showed somewhat more behavior problems in child care and in kindergarten classrooms than those who had experienced fewer hours" (ibid.) How can we reconcile both statements? One may conclude from this study that longer hours of child care was correlated with children behaving slightly worse--less socialized and less ready for the rules of the classroom. But parent characteristics, that is, whether the parents were emotionally supportive and created a cognitively enriched environment, whether parents had higher education and family income, whether both parents were together and raising the child, and, and whether the parents were psychologically well-adjusted and sensitive to the child's needs (P.25) were more important than the child care (P.5).

If parent characteristics are most important and if middle class families are, in the aggregate, less chaotic than disadvantaged families, child care quality becomes critical primarily for disadvantaged, chaotic households if one takes the research to its logical conclusions. The NICHD study does not support this conclusion (P.15), but other studies do, especially the longitudinal Abecedarian project, which showed cognitive improvements in disadvantaged children up to young adulthood. These disadvantaged kids also developed better health habits, were more likely to go to college and make more money, and were less likely to end up in trouble. The Abecedarian study also positively affected the behaviors of the teenage mothers of these children, making it more likely they would finish their schooling and be self-supporting.

Yet, how many disadvantaged mothers are able to take advantage of high-quality child care such as that offered by the Abecedarian project? Most disadvantaged parents do not have access to high-quality child care, using instead a relative or friend down the street. This care is not as bad as that of Uncle Ernie (in The Who's rock opera, Tommy), but unlicensed and unregulated care by relatives or friends is often poor quality, and, of course, unlicensed and unregulated care at centers is often poor quality as well. The NICHD authors admit that most child care is not high quality (P. 1 5). Low-quality care and low-quality parenting can be poor combination.

Children were somewhat more likely to be insecurely attached to their mothers if they were in lower quality care, but only if their mothers were also lower in sensitivity during interactions with their children (P.13).

These effects were less strong in the NICHD study, stronger in other studies. Insecurely attached children have increased stress and coping problems (Spangler 1993) and are less equipped to handle the rigors of public school. I will give more data on the dangers of low-quality care below.

Now let us leave the world of research and enter the even more murky universe of psychological theory. John Bowlby, founder of attachment theory, wrote that children belong with their mothers. Here is a summation of his famous book, Child Care and the Growth of Love:

• Maternal deprivation is a key cause of mental ill-health.
• Mothers are central to a child’s development with fathers and extended family members providing a supporting role.
• Any maternal separation will adversely affect a child to some degree.
• Efforts should be made to avoid family failure but even state support may not be enough where the fundamental problem is failing parents.
• Adoption should be undertaken as soon as possible.
• Where possible, the mothers of illegitimate children should be given the support to care for their children.
• Fostering, if possible with the extended family or neighbors, should be used for short term emergencies.
• Group care should be confined to treatment, the care of adolescents or the short-term care of younger children and sibling groups.
• In both fostering and group care parental contact should be encouraged.
• Treatment, whether for physical or mental illnesses, should if possible be provided in the child’s natural home and otherwise in homes close enough for parental contact.

NICHD researchers do not find differences in attachment security between kids in day care or at home, but Bowlby, interviewed well after his WWII orphanage observations that were the crux of his theory, was not a proponent of center-based care! And it is a stretch to imagine either Bowlby or (famous attachment researcher) Mary Ainsworth approving of center-based care where the child's primary (love) object can change day-to-day.

As a son and brother of academic researchers, I trust the scientific method over theory or other forms of evidence in determining the efficacy of child care. However, the most vociferous criticisms against child care come from heavily emotional personal stories. Conservative writer Karl Zinsmeister supplies plenty of anecdotal fodder in his article, The Problem with Day Care (The American Enterprise, May/June 1998). Much of it bemoans the lack of ANY high-quality child care.

Author Linda Burton is another person who has described in detail what she came across while scouring her hometown (the Washington, D.C. area) for day care:

In one instance, I found the "absolutely marvelous" family day care provider, recommended by trusted friends, sleeping on her sofa while 11 children (she had informed me that she only cared for five) wandered aimlessly around in front of the blaring TV. Another time, on an unannounced visit, I found that the "highly recommended" licensed day care provider confined seven preschoolers to her tiny dining room. I found them huddled together, leaning over a barricade to watch a TV program showing in the adjacent room.

These are not isolated anecdotes. Anyone investigating the world of full-time day care quickly amasses files of such testimony. A few years ago the Metropolitan Toronto Social Planning Council investigated a sample of 281 day care homes. They reported that a small number were genuinely stimulating, and another small number were out-and-out abusive. The large majority, however, provided care that was merely indifferent. Only a few of the caregivers studied were able to make themselves genuinely interested in each of their individual enrollees. In a significant minority of cases, youngsters were simply ignored most of the time.

Despite the doubts of Bowlby, despite how children cared by multiple caregivers would be a unrecommended practice according to attachment theory, and despite anecdotal evidence, NICHD research has shown few negative attachment effects on children in child care. By 2005, the American Academy of Pediatrics had revised its policy. Based on the NICHD and Abecedarian studies, it's publication, Quality Early Education and Child Care from Birth to Kindergarten (Volume 115, No. 1, January 1) stated a change in favor of child care but only high-quality care (or parenting).

When care is consistent, developmentally sound, and emotionally supportive, there is a positive effect on the child and the family.^8–21 Children exposed to a poor-quality environment, whether at home or outside the home, are less likely to be prepared for school demands and more likely to have their socioemotional development derailed.^8–21 The inadequate outcomes of children in poor-quality care often cannot be fully remedied in the formal structure of the K-12 educational system because of the need for noneducational services such as mental and behavioral health care.

As seen in the Abecedarian study above, lasting positive affects were seen when low-income children experience high-quality care. However, as noted by NICHD researchers, the authors of Quality Early Education and Child Care from Birth to Kindergarten write, "most child care centers in the United States are rated poor to mediocre in quality, with almost half meeting less than minimal standards" (ibid.).

Until child care improves in quality, low-income children will continue to suffer. Economically disadvantaged but "good-enough" parents (as Winnicott would say) may get better outcomes by avoiding low-quality child care if they have an economic choice.

Unreasonable Search and Seizure: Democracy and The Fall of the 4th Amendement

from Malcontends.blogspot.com

In the name of security the NSA continues to collect Americans' phone and email data. Please read what the Fourth Amendment says. Is there "probable cause" that ALL of us are terrorists? Of course not, and ex-president Jimmy Carter, in between hurling diatribes at Israel and supporting (at one time, democratically elected) radical Islamists in Egypt, complains that something has been lost.

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter … in the wake of the NSA spying scandal criticized the American political system. “America has no functioning democracy,” Carter said Tuesday [July 16, 2013] at a meeting of the “Atlantic Bridge” in Atlanta.(link here or  here)

 As usual, Carter isn't quite correct, but this time he is heading in the right direction. As shown by the writings of Aristotle and the actions of Robespierre, a democracy can be a tyranny. A constitutional republic, however, protects minorities from being trampled by the majority. We are not a democracy; we are a constitutional republic. For example, Congress could easily pass a law restricting the free speech of racists, terrorists, and communists, but the courts would not allow it (I hope). The Bill of Rights, that is, our Constitution, protects everyone's liberties, even the liberties of those that are unpopular, and protects those liberties despite the votes of the majority. Does our democracy function? Yes. Is it able to check the power of the NSA? Currently, no! That is what Carter is really saying. How did this come to pass?

Every three months a secret court approves the NSA's searching of American citizens. The (July 7, 2013) New York Times explains:

The 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISA court, was once mostly focused on approving case-by-case wiretapping orders. But since major changes in legislation and greater judicial oversight of intelligence operations were instituted six years ago, it has quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court, serving as the ultimate arbiter on surveillance issues and delivering opinions that will most likely shape intelligence practices for years to come, the officials said....In one of the court’s most important decisions, the judges have expanded the use in terrorism cases of a legal principle known as the “special needs” doctrine and carved out an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures, the officials said. The special needs doctrine was originally established in 1989 by the Supreme Court in a ruling allowing the drug testing of railway workers, finding that a minimal intrusion on privacy was justified by the government’s need to combat an overriding public danger. Applying that concept more broadly, the FISA judges have ruled that the N.S.A.’s collection and examination of Americans’ communications data to track possible terrorists does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, the officials said. (link here)

Don't worry. Everything is perfectly legal. Justice was executed in exact accordance with the law in Imperial Rome, Communist Russia, and Nazi Germany too, by the way. You have almost no rights against the NSA's unlawful search and seizure because a secret court,  far removed from any democratic accountability, transparency, and checks and balances, broadened a narrow Supreme Court ruling in order to completely gut the Fourth Amendment. The FISA judges may say that NSA's data mining of millions of innocent Americans does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. I believe that our constitutionally accountable John G. Roberts' judicial branch should give an opinion.

If a 2016 presidential candidate comes out strongly against this abuse of federal power (like, ironically, the 2008 Obama), he or she will get a lot of support, especially from Jimmy Carter.

Postscript July 26, 2013: The Obama administration fights a Congressional  amendment to cut the NSA's budget. Unfortunately, the pro-NSA forces won in Congress, though the vote was close. Could this scandal create a left-right alliance? (links here and here) See also how Obama resembles Bush here in W's Apprentice here John Roberts himself picks the FISA judges (link here).