Our Kids by Robert D. Putnam Book Summary

Our Kids, The American Dream in Crisis by Robert D. Putnam

Recommendation

Harvard public policy professor Robert D. Putnam documents the tragic plight of the American dream of upward mobility. His case studies, statistics and charts illustrate how the lower class has diverged from the middle and upper classes in economics, education, health and other areas. The personal accounts of people struggling against overwhelming and multifaceted circumstances will break your heart. getAbstract recommends Putnam’s presentation to educators, parents, politicians, policy makers, NGOs, and anyone interested in creating a more functional, fair society in the United States.

Take-Aways

• The American ideal of economic mobility no longer exists.
• Life experience in the US differs markedly by class.
• Class segregation grows as economic inequality increases.
• Poor neighborhoods lack social cohesion.
• Affluent families are more stable and have stronger social networks than poorer families.
• Well-to-do parents cultivate their children’s development, self-esteem and critical thinking.
• Poorer parents accentuate discipline and are more likely to discourage their kids.
• Affluent kids get a superior education, more mentoring and more after-school programs.
• Poor children don’t get the support they need and don’t reach their potential. This causes economic and social damage to the country.
• Antipoverty programs, early childhood education, mentoring programs and access to after-school programs improve the lives of poor children.

Our Kids Book Summary

What Happened to the American Dream?

In the 1950s, Port Clinton, Ohio, offered a solid portrait of the American Dream. Minorities and women suffered social repression, but income inequality was relatively low. People from different classes mixed socially and often intermarried. Communities were strong, and children born to poorer families had a chance to improve their economic circumstances.

“The essence of democracy is equal influence on public decisions.”

Consider Don. His father worked two jobs. The family didn’t eat out or take vacations, but they owned their home. Though neither of Don’s parents graduated from high school, they encouraged him to go to college. He attended a state college and became a minister. Richer kids in Port Clinton, like Frank, had advantages Don lacked. Frank was the first kid in his class to get braces. Frank had more financial security, but his life’s path – pursuing a career in journalism and running the family business – did not differ qualitatively from Don’s.

“Healthy infant brain development requires connecting with caring, consistent adults.”

Starting in the 1970s, the region’s manufacturing base crumbled. Manufacturing once provided 55% of local jobs. By 1995, it provided only 25%. Incomes started dropping in the 1970s and are now 25% below the US average. Population growth leveled out in the 1970s and started dropping in 1990. Local businesses closed. The number of single-parent households and unwed mothers rose, as did juvenile delinquency.

“Regardless of their own family background, kids do better in schools where the other kids come from affluent, educated homes.”

Wealthy Ohioans built expensive vacation homes in Port Clinton, increasing the gap between rich and poor. Teenagers who live there now experience very different educational and community worlds than Don and Frank. Those from affluent families enjoy expensive parties and vacations. Those from poorer families live makeshift lives; their parents are sometimes absent due to arrests or drug use. These parents do not supervise their kids’ schooling. If poorer kids graduate, they do so without a clear focus or skills. The town exemplifies the failure of the American Dream.

“No serious observer doubts that the past 40 years have witnessed an almost unprecedented growth in inequality in America.”

Port Clinton also poses a question: What chance does this generation of poor kids have to succeed? Does everyone still have a chance at economic equality and mobility? At the start of the 20th century, inequality was rampant in the US. Between 1945 and 1975 – inequality decreased. Incomes for the lowest 20% of wage earners grew slightly faster (3% annually) than for the top 20% (2.5%). This trend reversed in the 1970s. Income inequality increased, generally and within ethnicities. Those with college degrees earned “20% to 56%” more, while those with a high school education or less saw their incomes drop (22% for dropouts, 11% for high school grads). Neighborhood and “educational segregation” tracked this growing income gap. In Port Clinton, as elsewhere, the classes barely mix.

Families and Parenting

Two-parent families were the norm in the US in the 1950s. Only 4% of marriages ended in divorce. If a couple conceived children out of wedlock, they felt social pressure to marry. By the 1970s, the Pill had decoupled sex from marriage and procreation. Feminism challenged gender roles. Women moved into the labor market as economic shifts removed opportunities for men.

“Low-income men and women have children while searching for a long-term partner, not after they have found one.”

The most affluent people in the US have established a new family structure in which men and women both work. They build their careers before they have kids. College-educated women wait until around age 30 to have their first child. Women with only high school educations have children at 20 or earlier. Divorce rates rose in the ’60s, but divorce declined around 1980. For the poor, divorce kept rising and marriage became less common.

“In addition to philanthropy and good works, religious involvement among youth themselves is associated with a wide range of positive outcomes, both academic and nonacademic.”

All economic classes cohabitate now, but college-educated cohabitating couples rarely have children. Poorer couples do, but often the couples don’t stay together. Men with less education are more likely to father children with women they don’t live with; and more children grow up fatherless as “multipartner fertility” increases. College-educated mothers are more likely to work outside the home and more likely to have an employed male partner.

“Poor kids, through no fault of their own, are less prepared by their families, their schools and their communities to develop their God-given talents as fully as rich kids.”

Parental action influences kids. Parents who talk to and listen to their kids stimulate learning. The stable presence of responsive adults contributes to “healthy infant brain development.” In the right environment, kids between three to five years old develop their “executive functions,” which spur self-control and focus. If children experience stress, as poorer kids do, their executive functions develop more slowly. Poor youngsters are more likely to lack guidance for developing intellectual and social skills.

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

Since World War II, parenting followed two main trends. Mid-century, Dr. Benjamin Spock told parents to enjoy their kids and let them develop naturally. In the 1980s, “intensive parenting” replaced “permissive parenting.” Educated families who apply this model manage “concerted cultivation” of their kids. They use software and organize play sessions with developmental goals. They raise kids with high self-esteem who think independently. Affluent parents are likelier to reason with and spend more time with their kids.

“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.”

Parents from lower classes don’t have as much time, money or energy to devote to their children’s development. They emphasize discipline, and may spank or hit their children. The gap in parenting styles extends even to how parents talk to children. Over the course of raising their kids, more-educated parents offer “166,000 encouragements and 26,000 discouragements.” Working class parents give “62,000 and 36,000” encouragements and discouragements, while “parents on welfare delivered 26,000 and 57,000.” Children in poorer homes watch television instead of spending time with their parents.

Schools and Communities

De facto economic class and ethnicity segregation defines US schools. Schools with similar budgets, numbers of students, levels of teacher experience, and so on, differ radically in academic performance and student experiences. Compare Troy and Santa Ana High Schools in Orange County, California. Some 14% of Troy students qualify for reduced-price lunches; 84% qualify at Santa Ana. Four percent of Troy students have limited proficiency in English; 47% of Santa Ana students do. The schools’ SAT scores differ more than 600 points; graduation rates differ by 20%.

“Kids from more affluent homes are exposed to less toxic stress than kids raised in poverty.”

At Troy, students can select among more than 100 clubs, which parents pay for through donations or fund raising. Students at Troy study for the SAT on breaks and take extra classes. Troy parents help and guide their children. Santa Ana parents show little understanding of how the school system works or how to help their kids. Teachers assume few Santa Ana students will go to college, and don’t guide them to pursue appropriate curriculum tracks.

“There is no credible evidence that excessive parenting produces anything approaching the abundant ills associated with inadequate parenting.”

Sociologist Sean Reardon documented a growing gap on standardized test scores. In reading and math, the gap is 30% to 40% higher in 2011 than it was for those born 25 years earlier. Children from higher income families get “several more years of schooling” than poorer children. Scores for different racial groups converge, but scores within groups diverge according to class. Schools don’t cause these divergences: They exist by the time kids enter the school system. Rich and poor children attend different schools; concerned parents move to school districts with better schools.

“Changing the norm from childbearing by default to childbearing by design might have a big effect on the opportunity gap.”

Attending school with students from “affluent, educated homes” improves academic performance. Affluent parents demand stronger curricula. Peer pressure nudges students toward higher levels of commitment and achievement, rather than toward crime. Affluent schools offer more programs outside of class. Students who join them are more likely to have positive educational outcomes. Those who lead clubs and teams get jobs in management and earn more later in life. Their coaches and advisers often serve as mentors. As schools face budget troubles, they cut activities or impose “pay-to-play fees.” In one Ohio high school, these fees were as high as $783 to play football and $933 to play tennis. Schools offer waivers for low-income students, but these stigmatize participants.

“On average, parents from all socioeconomic strata have increased their spending on childcare and education over the past five decades.”

Different economic classes have different social networks. People with more education “have wider and deeper social networks” of family, friends and acquaintances. Educated people tap these networks for advice, references and jobs. The less-educated have narrower social networks that don’t help them advance economically. The Internet does not make up for this gap. Educated parents teach their children more sophisticated skills for navigating the digital world. Even if they do have web access, less-educated kids don’t know how to use it well.

Affluent kids have more mentors. Some are formal and some informal, growing organically from interactions with teachers and coaches. “Informal mentoring” tends to last longer than formal. Children from poorer homes are two to three times less likely to experience useful informal mentoring. The mentoring they do get doesn’t last as long as the mentoring that adults give more-privileged kids. Good mentoring helps affluent kids understand how to advance economically.

Neighborhoods are increasingly unequal and segregated by class. Your neighborhood and how long you live there has a powerful effect on your life. Poor neighborhoods lack “social cohesion” and “collective efficacy.” Residents rarely cooperate to make things better. Children learn not to trust, and suffer from violence, both directly and through the anxiety and depression it causes. Poorer children are more likely to be obese. Kids in richer neighborhoods learn to trust others. Their neighborhoods support academic success and provide opportunities for the children living in them. Houses of worship and religious institutions can help the young and the poor.

How to Make Things Better

As the gap between classes grows, lack of economic mobility becomes more significant. Your class and family background have more impact, and those effects last longer. Older Americans who matured while ascending the economic ladder tend to understand less about what life is like for people in other classes.

Poor children have little chance to realize their potential. “Child poverty” costs the US half a trillion dollars annually. Technology increasingly defines the economy, and workers need technological skills. Allowing an undereducated poverty class to grow makes the US less competitive. The country loses trillions in the wages that poor youth would earn if they were better educated. Nobel economist James Heckman estimates that money invested in early childhood education would outearn the stock market, producing returns of 6% to 10%.

Democracy assumes that all citizens have equal say. People must get involved on the grass-roots level and vote. Political involvement diverges according to class. If you have only a high school education, you’re less likely to attend a town hall meeting or join advocacy actions like boycotts. Once “political noninvolvement” becomes a personal norm, it is likely to be inherited. This creates a permanently disengaged political underclass. These classes may remain inert, but demagogic leaders can rouse them, as happened with Nazism.

To help this situation, address families. People should have children by choice, not by accident. Since 90% of Americans support birth control and 60% of pregnancies of single young women aren’t planned, make birth control widely available. Consider giving existing poor families money: Increasing a family’s income by $3,000 when children are five years old or younger increases those kids’ SAT scores 20 points – and boosts their later income by roughly 20%.

Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and provide a more generous “child tax credit.” Policy makers should protect programs that fight poverty. Legislatures should reduce sentences for nonviolent crime. Prison should provide rehabilitation and retraining.

Good day care and providing coaching in parenting skills promote child development. Get rid of “residential segregation” to help children socially and educationally. Put more money into schools, especially investing in recruiting better teachers. School systems could offer bonuses to draw teachers to poor schools in weaker districts. School boards, parents and legislature can make the school day longer and more rigorous. Help start and nurture community organizations that support outreach across class lines, education, families and the larger community. Revive vocational education. Poorer students tend to attend community colleges. Strengthen these schools, and support students with formal mentoring programs.

About the Author

Robert D. Putnam is Malkin Professor of Public Policy at Harvard, winner of the Skytte Prize and the National Humanities Medal, and author of American Grace and Bowling Alone.

Video & Podcast