A program for better parenting (and why conservatives oppose it)
Reporter Stephanie Banchero has a terrific story in Thursday’s Chicago Tribune about Parents Too Soon, a program that “sends ‘parent educators’ into the home to teach young moms about the social, emotional and brain development of children, in the hope they can develop better parenting skills.” The story centers on 18-year-old Shantell Thomas and her son, Jabari. Shantell lives in the dangerous Chicago neighborhood of Lawndale (one of the communities where I used to teach), grew up in a violent home, and has been on the giving and receiving end of violence in the streets. She signed up for the program because
My father taught me to be a hustler. My mama taught me how to talk people out of stuff I want…. I want to be a better parent than what my parents did. I needed someone to teach me how to do better than that.”
Banchero writes,
If Jabari is to learn alternatives to aggressive behavior, it must be imprinted onto his brain now. To do that, you must start with his mom. ‘Children model what they see. If they see the parents using physical aggression, then the child will learn that–when they meet life’s frustrations–the right thing to do is use physical aggression,’ said Seth Scholer, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt who has studied violence and parenting programs. ‘Evidence points to the fact that ineffective parenting and early childhood aggression are two of the root causes of violence.’”
The health care legislation now being debated includes money to fund these types of programs by providing grants to states. (Note: there is nothing in the legislation that could lead any reasonable person to assume that the federal government is designing a parenting program, as some critics have charged.) Existing programs with a similar aim include the Baby College component of the Harlem Children’s Zone (see video below for a short overview of the HCZ from its founder, Geoffrey Canada) and System of Care Chicago, which the Tribune reported on nearly four years ago. You can find the full description of how funding for home visit programs would work beginning on page 1176 of the House health care bill.**
The idea of a home visit program to help parents raise physically and emotionally healthy, mentally stimulated children is one that many conservatives—from Rush Limbaugh to the Heritage Foundation*** (which on its blog referred to this provision as a “stealth agenda” that had nothing to do with health care) to individual bloggers—railed against this summer during the rancorous health care debate. At first, I was confused by this resistance. After all, as Banchero writes, the program
is based on the simple philosophy that parents are a child’s best teacher. It uses a research-based curriculum and trains parent educators to go into homes and translate the scientific facts on brain development into specific advice. By understanding the developmental stages, the thinking goes, parents can improve the child’s social, emotional and cognitive growth.”
She also cites Nobel-Prize winning Professor James Heckman, who explains,
“When you compare the cost of hiring a policeman versus the cost of an early childhood program that promotes high school graduation and reduces crime, it’s 10 times more effective to invest in early childhood…. Much of the savings comes from crime reduction.”
So why would conservatives attempt to shout down a proposal that would strengthen families, empower parents to make responsible decisions for their children, reduce crime, and save the country money in the long run (all conservative talking points)? Here’s my theory: Most people opposed to this type of program probably have not spent time working in low-income communities with the parents and families who would be affected. These conservative commentators just don’t understand why a program like this would be necessary, or how it could make a tangible difference in people’s lives. In contrast, here’s one story (of many) from my experience as a high school teacher in two low-income neighborhoods in Chicago that influences my thinking on the issue:
In November 2008, a senior in my English class (I’ll call her Erika) told me that she had been absent recently due to her 18-month-old son being sick. I asked a few polite questions, and she ended up firing a number of parenting questions at me–even though she knew I was not married and had no kids. One question she asked was whether or not her son would have behavior issues when he started school; she was concerned because her son’s father had behavior problems in school. I explained to her that most of her son’s behavior would be based on what she did as a mom–how she disciplined him, how she interacted with him, how much she talked to and read to him, etc. My student, a bright girl, was blown away. It had never occurred to her (and no one had ever explained to her!) that what she did as a parent during her son’s early years would impact his behavior or achievement years later in school. I was blown away, too, because I assumed that a mother would just know that. I mean, how could she not, right?
That conversation led me to give my student parenting resources (lists of kid-friendly museums and parks; money to take her son to the Navy Pier Children’s Museum; parenting tips from respected medical/parenting Web sites; age-appropriate books), mini-lessons on literacy (going through Hart & Risley’s study on the 30-million word gap; modeling how to read books to her son and then having her model it back to me), and discipline tips (e.g., I told her that when her son was acting out, instead of getting loud with him she should kneel down and whisper in his ear that she needed him to be quiet/stop throwing a fit; she started doing it and reported back to me with a big smile that it had consistently worked) over the course of a few months.
Although I don’t think I’m particularly qualified to give parenting advice, I was happy to help Erika as much as I could. The problem is, there were dozens of girls at our school in the same situation who needed but were not receiving this type of information/support. Had there been a well-run parenting program connected with my school, I could have referred my students there. But there wasn’t. Based on my conversations with them, I am fairly certain that most of their children are not getting the type of parenting that will help them be successful in school and society. This isn’t to say that their moms don’t want to do a good job or don’t love them; it’s just that many of them don’t have certain knowledge and resources that people in higher-income households often take for granted.
If the conservative argument against home visits is that the government shouldn’t get involved, then I suggest conservatives voluntarily put their own movement’s money (i.e., millions and millions of dollars, just like the federal government would) toward proven programs like Parents Too Soon, so people in low-income areas who want to become better parents can have access to resources that will help them do so. If the conservative movement is not willing to do that, I respectfully suggest that they step aside and stop complaining. Home visits are not a government conspiracy to control how kids are raised. They’re a good-faith effort to improve the lives of struggling kids and parents, and its implementation will make our country a stronger place.
FOOTNOTES
** Since this has bothered me during the whole health care debate…the bill is not as long as people make it out to be. The problem is, legislation always is written in a format that includes 1.75-inch margins, double spacing, lots of words written in all CAPS, and tons of indenting and sub-indenting and sub-sub-indenting. This means that there are only 180-200 words per page, whereas with normal formatting–1-inch margins, size 12 Times New Roman font, and single spacing–there would be about 500 words per page. Some simple math tells us that the bill’s odd formatting makes it 150% longer than it would be with normal formatting. In other words, this is not a 2,000-page bill; it’s an 800-page bill. Extremely long? Yes. Too long? Perhaps. However, when critics print out the entire bill and hold it up for the cameras, they’re holding up 2,000 sheets of paper that are 60% blank.
*** A somewhat tedious check through the bios of the Heritage Foundation’s 80 “policy experts” (75 of whom are white, and none of whom are black, for what it’s worth) resulted in this interesting finding: Of those experts who deal with education, health, or family issues, only one has been a teacher (though Jennifer Marshall taught at an American school in France, which isn’t exactly Compton or the south side of Chicago), and none of their bios included anything relating to working with parents and children in low-income communities (which makes me wonder how the HF can call them “experts” in these areas). Then again, after conservatives spent a year maligning President Obama for doing this kind of work in his post-college years, they probably would have deleted that part of their resumes in order to keep up their never-been-anywhere-near-the-street cred.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Travis Phelps, Karlyn Mequiston. Karlyn Mequiston said: A program for better parenting (and why conservatives oppose it): Reporter Stephanie Banchero has a terrific st.. http://bit.ly/8uRr13 [...]
I might assume that these conservatives assume the parents know how to do this because their parents taught them. How many of us were around watching our parents raise and discipline infants and toddlers? (Some of us are only children) Or had excellent role models of how to do that?
There are many high(er)-income families where kids are raised in appalling ways — just watch any episode of SuperNanny (which always seems to focus only on middle class Caucasians) where the homes are enormous, half the moms don’t work and the kids are still out of control monsters.
Caitlin — I think a high percentage of people, regardless of political leaning, fail to realize (a) how important it is to have a model of good parenting growing up, and (b) that many people never see that model. However, conservatives have been the ones to speak out strongly against efforts to provide a model for parents who might need & want it. (To be fair, I have liberal friends who might argue that this type of program assumes that middle-class values are “right,” and that this type of program only promotes the dominant culture in terms of race & class & parenting style. The differences are: (a) most of them have experiences that lead me to believe they understand the challenges that low-income folks, and especially young parents in low-income areas, face, and (b) they are making their argument out of respect for that group of people, not because of some political battle.)
In response to another comment. See in context »Hey, Michael — I got to your post because it was highlighted on Google News! Congrats, man!
Thanks, Lisa!
In response to another comment. See in context »Home visits are controversial, but extremely effective. Every social program that works well involves home visits. If we want to change a family’s journey, we have to change the environment in a home. The hours and hours a parent spends with a young child (or doesn’t spend) can never compare with the relatively few hours they spend in public school.
If conservatives don’t want the government in a person’s home, then they are free to contribute to private programs through churches and community organizations that do the same things. Government isn’t the only solution – but they are often the only one willing to step up in tough communities.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Megan Cottrell, Pads Chicago. Pads Chicago said: RT @mmcottrell: a program for better parenting (and why conservatives oppose it) http://bit.ly/7XRzWL [...]
[...] Michael Salmonowicz at True/Slant points out that the Heritage Foundation opposes a Chicago program called Parents Too Soon (reporter Stephanie Banchero at the Chicago Tribune, on the other hand, is a fan). It seems like a smart program–low-cost home visits to help young inner-city parents give their children the best start possible in life. Building stronger families, with healthier kids: why would the family-values crowd oppose that? [...]
Mr. Salmonowicz
Your wrote: “Here’s my theory: Most people opposed to this type of program probably have not spent time working in low-income communities with the parents and families who would be affected. These conservative commentators just don’t understand why a program like this would be necessary, or how it could make a tangible difference in people’s lives.”
I believe that you are quite mistaken. Conservatives oppose programs like this because liberals support them. I a conservative church had proposed the idea, they would have supported it. It is just that simple.
Those nasty, dumb conservatives, everything would be so much better if they just went away.
It actually sounds like a program with potential, I just don’t see why the government has to do it. If it makes sense people will support it.
More generally, why do we need to spend other people’s money on our favorite programs? Why not spend our own money on programs we care about? I think it is ok to trust people to do the right thing. I really do trust people on average to do the right thing. Certainly more than I trust the government.
rwoodley – I don’t think anyone would be better off if conservatives “went away.” What I do think is that many conservatives have attempted to prevent a good idea–home visits to help struggling parents–from going forward (not to mention slandering the idea along the way by insinuating that it is some secret scheme to increase government control over people’s lives) in the name of limited government. Principles are important, but so is pragmatism. And since we do have a government and it does collect taxes and we could use a small amount of that money to address a large problem, I think it would be wise to do so. Not spending money on programs like this does not result in less spending; we just end up spending more money years later in other places, like state & federal corrections ($60 billion per year), more police on the street, and welfare benefits. If money were to be spent on home visits, of course, we should cut spending somewhere else; government should not pay for everything. But this is exactly the type of thing that government should spend money on. It’s a small investment that promises a high return, in part because by preventing problems from occurring it saves us money down the road. And I’m disappointed more conservatives don’t acknowledge that.
And to your point that average people should support this on their own, without the government’s involvement…it would be extremely costly and time consuming to attempt to create a private marketing and fundraising arm that *might* be able to bring in enough funds to start something on a small scale. If this were a small problem that we didn’t know how to fix, that would be a good strategy. But it is a big problem and we have some best practices that can help us fix it, and the most efficient way to pay for it is through government. And on principle I don’t have a problem with this, because the problem affects all of us–if only through the billions of tax dollars we pay to deal with the consequences (corrections, welfare, police, etc.) of not addressing the problem early on.
In response to another comment. See in context »So no liberals oppose this…..usually the government needs a warrant to enter a home….who would be dumb enough to invite them in?
andy – To your first point, here is the response I gave to another reader: “I think a high percentage of people, regardless of political leaning, fail to realize (a) how important it is to have a model of good parenting growing up, and (b) that many people never see that model. However, conservatives have been the ones to speak out strongly against efforts to provide a model for parents who might need & want it. (To be fair, I have liberal friends who might argue that this type of program assumes that middle-class values are “right,” and that this type of program only promotes the dominant culture in terms of race & class & parenting style. The differences are: (a) most of them have experiences that lead me to believe they understand the challenges that low-income folks, and especially young parents in low-income areas, face, and (b) they are making their argument out of respect for that group of people, not because of some political battle.)”
To your second point, the home visit programs are voluntary. People are offered the chance to sign up, just as people are offered the chance to apply for unemployment insurance or for free or reduced lunch at school. It’s a choice that is offered, not forced.
Your question (who would be dumb enough to invite them in?) is the type of thing that leads me to believe that many people don’t understand how badly some people, especially in low-income, urban areas, are struggling and need assistance. I don’t even know how to explain it here. If you’re looking to understand a bit more, though, I recommend volunteering at a soup kitchen or homeless shelter for a few weeks, and striking up conversations with some of the people there. Learn their stories and find out what they think they need to get back on their feet (or what could have helped them from falling into their current situation). Ask what has been helpful to them, and get their opinion about government versus non-government assistance (e.g., have they found one to be better than they other?). My point is, when people are struggling they likely will take advantage of the help that is available, whether it’s from the government or from somewhere else. I don’t think it’s fair to call someone “dumb” for taking advantage of an opportunity that can help them–and their children–live a better life. In fact, if a parent chooses to join a program that will help them be a better parent, I would say that is a great example of personal responsibility.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] A program for better parenting (and why conservatives oppose it … [...]
[...] A program for better parenting (and why conservatives oppose it … [...]
Michael,
Two thoughts – conservatives (or tax-payers in general) may oppose these measures because they seldom show results. Behavior change is fantastically difficult to influence, especially something as personal and cultural as parenting.
I think you’re at risk of confusing an objection to the means with an objection to the ends. Conservatives after all, do have a bit of a soft-spot for promoting “family values.” I would object too if I thought this was (as it seems to be) a band-aid solution. Is this program the best way to illicit deep sustained change? Such a tactic only seems appropriate within the context of much larger, well coordinated systemic efforts.
ptgoff – You make good points, and I agree with them to a certain extent. Yes, behavior change is difficult to influence. However, it seems like the track record for this type of thing gets skewed by failed past initiatives (e.g., during Johnson’s Great Society initiatives) when the research base and science (e.g., new findings on the human brain and on child development) we have access to today did not exist. Perhaps it’s my optimistic nature, but I tend to look at what has been accomplished through the newest, best programs, and advocate for replicating them/scaling them up.
I also agree that this could be a means v. ends argument. However, I don’t see conservatives putting out specific proposals that attempt to meet those ends by other means. If a set of competing proposals did exist, I would consider them gladly. And if you know of any, please pass along that information; I certainly do not believe that urban issues belong solely to liberals or Democrats.
Finally, one thing that could make the home visit program better is to concentrate it in certain neighborhoods/communities within urban areas. To use Chicago as an example, it might be good to target resources into Lawndale, thus building capacity within that communities. If many parents in a small area received the same training and shared the same language when it came to child-rearing, those parents might end up setting new norms within that community. At a certain point, then, it might be possible to pull the program’s resources out of that community and put them to use in another one. And once these new norms are set, this could have ripple effects by spreading to the community’s schools, thus enhancing students’ academic performance. Geoffrey Canada talks about this same idea in the book Whatever It Takes (by Paul Tough). He believes that bringing 100 college graduates per year back into Harlem for a decade (a total of 1,000 college grads) could significantly change the norms within the community as they interact with friends and co-workers, start families, etc. This idea of new behaviors or expectations spreading like this is pushed by the authors of the new book, Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives, Nicholas Christakis & James Fowler.
In response to another comment. See in context »Michael,
I’m not aware of many wide-spanning programs that successfully tap the capacity of a given neighborhood. Some of the Hope VI projects seem to be doing a good job, using a promising model of combining housing initiatives with education. This speaks to developing the social networks you mention. Perhaps a parenting program would gain more traction and generate more lasting results if paired with these sorts of projects?
I’m woefully unaware of who specifically or even which party is primarily championing which reform at any given moment. But I’m not quite sure that’s the most important issue. Part of a democratic system is to provide a forum for discourse. Not the pedantic, mind-numbing discourse of the talking-heads: their rants are a distasteful side-effect. I’m worried you may have portrayed one group as being against the idea when they may only be against the policy. It seems a bit unfair to require anyone body to have a better solution before offering a critique. While a solution may arise from an objection to proposed policy solutions, a solution need not be ready to object to a given line of action.
It may be that the objections are strictly partisan or that the reasoning is simple bigotry. I hope not. It may help to discern which is which by taking a look at what the objections were to the specific policy, what the objections were to the larger concept, and what the political context is beyond this particular program. Have changes been proposed? What is the discourse around the modifications and changes? What other changes might conservatives suggest? Shouldn’t we look at the objection by a rival political group as a source of information? What are they seeing that we’re not? How can their points be incorporated to make a stronger, more enduring policy?
Your last point on the 1000 college grads is really interesting. My balloon-popping sentiment is probably just my having a different perspective. I’d think that an influx of college degree’d folks would be railed against as gentrification. And even escaping the gentrification label, such an event seems unlikely. History, both recent and beyond, shows a fairly strong record of people acquiring resources and then using them to purchase a safer, more desirable (however that is interpreted) environment. How do we get these people to move back to (and stay) in these environments? If they’ll come how much latitude do you give them in changing their environment – starbucks, higher rents, etc. must be expected to come hand-in-hand with new social networks and families and such.
In response to another comment. See in context »