WHAT IS TO BE DONE?
In his thoughtful book The Price of Citizenship, historian Michael Katz shows that in recent years Americans’ conception of welfare has grown excessively narrow.34 A preoccupation with public assistance to the poor has led Americans to overlook two other important forms of social distribution: social insurance programs and taxation policies. Yet in size and scope, social insurance programs, particularly Social Security and Medicare, dwarf the cost of payments to poor families. Moreover, these programs have been effective in reducing the percentage of poor among the elderly. It is very likely that the state could take similar steps to reduce inequality among American families. State intervention would probably be the most direct and effective way to reduce the kinds of social inequality described in this book. For example, a child allowance, similar to what Sweden and other Western European nations provide, would likely be very effective in eliminating child poverty and reducing the gap in economic and social resources.35 As David Karen points out, increasing the “safety net” for poor and working-class families would be helpfuclass="underline"
Anything that can be done to provide a safety net for the poor (and working class) will increase the resources of . . . children and therefore make it possible for them to engage in some of the activities that they’re currently excluded from. This exclusion takes place not only because they don’t have the money to participate but also because parental time is so limited. If parental time (say, thanks to fewer hours at work) were more available, there might be more access to participation. Under this rubric, I’d put things like universal health care, state-supported daycare, (and) a guaranteed minimum income.36
In addition, an increase in federal and state recreation monies would be useful since, in interviews I conducted with directors of recreation programs in the regions surrounding Swan and Lower Richmond schools, it was clear that as the township became more affluent, more elaborate recreational programs were available. Vouchers for extracurricular activities and transportation to activities (e.g., music lessons, art lessons, sports programs, and specialized summer camps) are another possibility. A problem is that neighborhoods are often relatively homogenous by social class. Consolidating neighborhoods so that working-class and poor children become part of more affluent neighborhoods would be likely to increase access to desirable facilities. What is far less likely, however, is the existence of the political will to support this redistribution of wealth. Instead, Americans, as is their wont, are likely to remain preoccupied with more individual solutions. Since, however, the problems differ by social class, the solutions do as well. Below, I review some of the possibilities.
Slowing It Down: Policy Implications for Middle-Class Families
The frenetic schedule of some middle-class families is a topic that increasingly bubbles up in media reports. As a result, there is an emerging social movement of professionals and middle-class parents to resist the scheduling of children’s lives. Books, including The Over-Scheduled Child, insist that children’s schedules are out of controclass="underline"
It is Tuesday at 6:45 A.M. Belinda, age seven, is still asleep. School doesn’t start until 9:00 A.M. and her mother usually lets her sleep until 7:30 A.M. But not on Tuesdays. That’s the day Belinda has a 7:30 A.M. piano lesson. From it she goes directly to school, which lasts until three. Then the babysitter drives Belinda to gymnastics for the 4:00–6:30 P.M. class. While Tuesday is the busiest day, the rest of the week is filled up too, with religious school and choir practice, ballet, and (Belinda’s favorite) horseback riding. “She’s pretty worn out by the end of the day,” her mother laments . . . “I’m not really sure it is a good thing [to be so busy]. But I want to give her the advantages I didn’t have.”37
The authors are outraged by this kind of schedule:
We sense that our family lives are out of whack, but we aren’t sure why. We know we are doing too much for our kids, but we don’t know where it might be okay to cut back— . . . every time we . . . turn [around] . . . someone else is adding something new to the list of things we are supposed to be doing for our children to make sure they turn out right.38
Resistance is spreading. At the collective level, grassroots organizations such as “Family Life First,” based in Wayzata, Minnesota, are pressuring coaches and adult leaders of other organized activities to make family time a priority (by, for example, not scheduling events on Sundays or not penalizing children who miss games while on family vacations). Ridgewood, New Jersey, gained national attention when citizens declared a community-wide (voluntary) “Family Night” and arranged for children’s organized activities (and homework) to be canceled for the evening. These incipient movements have in common an explicit recognition that children’s schedules are absurd, that family life is in thrall to a frenzy of “hyper-scheduling.”39 Decrying the development of children’s appointment books, professionals call for children to have more opportunities for unstructured play.40 At the individual level, parents are encouraged to set strict limits on children’s activities. Some parents proudly announce on websites that they require their children to limit themselves to only one activity at a time.
A systematic critique of parents’ role in supervising and intervening in institutions has not yet emerged. Indeed, many professionals actively recruit and encourage parental involvement in schooling. Doubts about the value of extensive reasoning with children, on the other hand, are mounting. Problems stemming from the blurring of boundaries between parents and children are especially well covered by professionals and the media. With titles such as Parents in Charge: Setting Healthy, Loving Boundaries for You and Your Child and I’ll Be the Parent, You Be the Child, professionals are signaling the need for parents to provide directives to children. The books provide cautionary tales of rude, obnoxious, and ungrateful children who refuse to be polite to guests, who feel that they, as children, may decide when they will or will not join the family for dinner, and who are unable to convey appreciation for the gifts they receive. Describing these children as out of control and craving adult intervention, the authors call for parents to “set limits and make decisions.” The solution the experts offer calls mainly for individual action: each parent is encouraged to look within her or himself to find the necessary strength to take charge, to give clear directives to children, and to resist the temptation to seek their children’s approval.