The day that diploma came in the mail he was [at the beach]. I called his cell phone like five times. I was like, “Please call me. You got your diploma. We’re so proud.” Oh my God, we were so proud. Big Billy, tears came out of his eyes and everything. We were so proud. Nobody in my family has ever been educated, has ever graduated.
In his interview, Mr. Yanelli noted that he had wanted Billy to go to college, but he was very proud that his son had “graduated.” The difference between a GED and a college diploma seemed relatively modest to Mr. Yanelli. The important fact was that Billy had a diploma.
With less detailed knowledge of educational institutions, working-class and poor parents were then unaware of what sorts of questions to pose or what criteria to use to sort and prioritize colleges that might be a good “fit” for their children. Furthermore, these parents (many of whom had not finished high school) turned over responsibility for education to the school, and to their children as they became adolescents. The less privileged parents did not assertively manage core aspects of their children’s school experience. Nor did they seem attuned to the gradations of academic status among the many public high schools in their urban district. For example, Ms. Brindle was concerned about her daughter’s physical safety and wanted her to stay close to home. She did not want Katie to go to a school 20 minutes away, in a different neighborhood. This school had a higher academic rank than the schools that Ms. Brindle directed her daughter to choose between. As Katie explained,
I wanted to go to [a prestigious academic high school]. But my mom said I could only take the Washington or Franklin [offers] because they were in the neighborhood.
Working-class and poor parents also lacked independent sources of information about schools; they were totally dependent on the recommendations of educators. Since the school district did not directly share key pieces of information with parents or students, it was easy for working-class and poor parents to be misinformed. For example, Mr. and Ms. Yanelli very much wanted Billy to attend Henry Vocational School, a highly respected magnet high school. Ms. Yanelli was stunned when she realized that she had not fully understood the admission procedures:
Henry was like the most decent school around here, but Henry wouldn’t accept him. And I thought it would go by [Billy’s grades in] eighth [grade], but it went by seventh.
The Yanelli family knew important pieces of information, namely that Billy would need to apply to high school and that Henry High School was more desirable than Lower Richmond High School. They also worked to make sure that the application was filled out and submitted. Nevertheless, Billy was not accepted, in part because the application relied on his seventh grade grades, which had been poor, rather than his significantly better eighth grade grades. Ms. Yanelli had misunderstood a critical element of the selection process. After he was turned down by Henry Vocational School, Billy’s options were limited; he went to Lower Richmond.
Similarly, information about the college admission process that was common knowledge to middle-class families was “shocking” and bewildering to working-class parents like Wendy’s, who had not gone to college themselves (nor had anyone in their immediate families). Wendy’s stepfather, Mack Fallon, appeared to believe that college application fees were refunded if the applicant was not admitted. Also, her mother misunderstood a key communication during a fall trip to Alvernia, a college to which Wendy was later admitted. Ms. Driver had driven her daughter to the campus for a visit and interview, both of which seemed to have gone very well:
It was really shocking because of the interview. The person we met with was very nice and looked at her grades and SATs and all that stuff . . . and when we left they said, “Well, we will see you in a couple months for [the] reception.” And we were ecstatic!
Their excitement over Wendy’s apparent acceptance to this college was short-lived, as Ms. Driver explained:
When we left we had to go down to the front desk. And they said, “We’ll be calling you.” And I said, “What do you mean, you’ll be calling me?” [They said,] “Well, we’ll give you a call or a letter to let you know if you’re accepted.” And I’m like, “She’s accepted.” They’re like, “What?!” I said, “They said she was accepted.” They said, “You know that’s not a promise.”
Ms. Driver, a high school graduate working as a secretary, and Wendy had been unaware of the seasonal aspect of the college application process. Nor had Wendy’s school counselor thought to explain to them that students normally apply in the fall and are notified of acceptances and rejections in the spring.41 Wendy’s parents were very enthusiastic about her attending college. Though many of the details escaped them, both parents were very clear on the amount they would have to pay: $1,000 per month. (Ms. Driver was planning to get a second job.) Wendy’s parents depended on the high school counselor (who was quite helpful) and on other professionals throughout the college application process in a way that middle-class parents such as the Tallingers did not. Moreover, her parents’ approach to educational institutions had not changed significantly from when Wendy was in fourth grade. At that time, Ms. Driver had been very concerned that Wendy was still not reading, but she depended on educators to manage the situation. For their part, high school teachers, much like those in elementary school, appeared to expect that Wendy’s parents would take an assertive role in monitoring, managing, and intervening in her school transitions. But it was much harder for working-class and poor parents to comply with this institutional expectation than it was for middle-class parents, because parents’ involvement often was tied to class resources rather than to their love and affection for their children.42
The young adults from working-class and poor families shared their parents’ hazy understanding of college. The youths had hope and ambition, but their knowledge of higher education systems and the pathways through which they might gain additional training and then transition into attractive jobs was imprecise at best. Harold talked about someday “going back to school,” but he did not have a specific school or program in mind. Katie planned to follow up with a friend’s mother who “was talking about medical transcripts.” Though she was unclear about what the job involved or what the wages might be, Katie thought she would “be able to work at a desk and . . . still be paid good.”
In sum, for the working-class and poor families whose life experience had involved moving into the world of work immediately after high school, college was a foreign country. They did not have the middle-class parents’ taken-for-granted experience with higher education in their own lives; nor were they embedded in a social context like that found in suburban school communities, where applying to college was virtually universal. As travelers in foreign lands often discover, it is easy to make simple mistakes.
Interventions
As the youth moved through institutions, they encountered difficulties of various kinds. Some were relatively inconsequential, but others were potentially life changing. Youth sustained injuries and needed surgery, did not like a teacher they had for a course, had unplanned pregnancies, or chose colleges that turned out not to be a good fit. Parents in the study differed in the degree to which they actively supervised their children’s institutional lives. The middle-class parents saw interventions on their children’s behalf as their right and their duty. They were also generally successful in resolving glitches before they derailed the trajectories of their youth. The working-class and poor parents were able to assist with numerous issues in their children’s lives, but in educational institutions and other institutions run by professionals, they expected the professionals to be in charge. In many cases, the institutions expected direct parental involvement, so parents’ decision to leave responsibility for interventions with professionals (or with their adolescent children) was associated with students becoming derailed from a higher education trajectory.
Middle-Class Families: Concerted Cultivation Continues Not only did middle-class parents gather information, but they also actively worked with the
ir sons and daughters, and with the schools, to increase their children’s opportunities. Middle-class parents continued a pattern begun in elementary school. For example, the Williams family undertook a very elaborate college search process. Alexander prepared for the SAT by taking many practice tests, which helped his scores to “[keep] going up”; he also had a private tutor. Mr. Williams took time off from work to accompany Alexander on a spring-break tour of colleges. Ms. Williams also visited colleges with Alexander, and he went on a summertime “college tour,” during which he and “a friend . . . looked at a bunch of schools.” Based on these visits, he worked with his mother to compile a list of colleges to which he would apply. Alexander zeroed in on Columbia and, in consultation with his mother, submitted an early decision application. Other parents also reported large expenditures of time and energy helping their child apply to college.
Middle-class parents’ determination to give their children as many advantages as possible continued over time. In some cases, without any input from educators, these parents critically assessed their children’s skills and found them wanting. The Marshalls, for instance, felt that Stacey needed additional support in math before she began high school. She was passing all of her middle-school classes, but she was not excelling. Ms. Marshall, worried that Stacey had a “weakness” in math, enrolled her in a summer algebra class she hoped would give Stacey a “boost”:
I had her take a summer school course . . . just to build up that confidence. I had seen in seventh and eighth grade that weakness. She was the only one in the summer school class who was taking it and hadn’t failed it. That gave her the boost that she needed. . . . She didn’t want to go but she went. She definitely went. She definitely appreciated it her freshman year because she ended up being “the best” in her ninth grade algebra class.
Even when Stacey was hundreds of miles away at college, Ms. Marshall continued to give her detailed advice on course selection (e.g., steering her away from an intensive calculus course: “I can’t see fitting a calculus course into a four-week period for someone who dislikes math as much as Stacey”), and she stressed the importance of Stacey working closely with her academic advisor. In short, the kind of monitoring and interventions that Ms. Marshall devoted to Stacey’s gymnastics and schooling when she was ten years old continued, in a somewhat different form, as Stacey passed through adolescence into young adulthood. Although she was a young adult, in crucial ways her mother viewed her as a child who would benefit from continuous monitoring and assistance.
Similarly, Mr. and Ms. Handlon kept up vigorous oversight of their daughter’s schooling. They too critically assessed the advice of professionals before acting (or not) on it. In middle school, when educators recommended that Melanie repeat a grade, the Handlons rejected that advice. This was not an easy decision for Ms. Handlon (“I come from a family of teachers”), but she felt that Melanie really needed “to get out of that environment.” When Melanie was in high school, Ms. Handlon also worked closely with her teachers. For example, despite being a happy and adept school cheerleader (which “surprised and amazed” her mother), Melanie insisted that she was terrified of public speaking. Giving a short public speech was a requirement for graduation, however. Ms. Handlon went to the school and negotiated an arrangement whereby Melanie was permitted to give her speech to a small, private audience.
The middle-class youth tended to have smaller hurdles than those faced by working-class and poor youth, but their parents made vigorous efforts to help their children surmount them. For example, as his son’s interest in playing college basketball deepened, Mr. Tallinger spoke to the coach of Garrett’s summer-league team about increasing his playing time.43 Since college coaches scout at summer games, playing time can be crucial for securing a sports scholarship. After Mr. Tallinger’s intervention, Garrett’s playing time increased “some.” Ms. Williams provided timely assistance when Alexander’s summer internship fell through at the last minute. She helped her son develop a new plan for the summer that would allow him to develop his premed interests and skills.
Some problems middle-class parents could not fix. For example, Ms. Marshall could only commiserate with her daughter when she got a low grade in an important premed course. The course grade was impossible to change. Similarly, despite daily reminders from her mother, Melanie simply stopped attending her community college courses. She did not formally withdraw, so she failed the semester. In these situations, parents had to let their children find their own way. Thus, being middle-class did not prevent young adults from facing important challenges. Still, when the youth ran into significant problems, their parents often were ready, willing, and able to intervene with officials in institutions, and these interventions often helped.
Working-Class and Poor Families: Accomplishment of Natural Growth Continues For working-class and poor youth, whose parents appeared to continue the pattern of accomplishment of natural growth, educational careers were handled at school, by teachers and counselors, and the students themselves.44 Educational decision-making was not a family affair. For example, Harold started high school in a college-prep program:
[L]ike ninth grade, I was in the magnet charter, that was like the top charter—in the school they do all college-bound work. So I was cool. The magnet was in just like math and science.
He expected to continue in this college-prep program, although he had received a D in English his freshman year and had been late to school a few times. On the first day of his sophomore year, however, the teacher told Harold that he was no longer in that program:
So they kind of kicked me out [of] that charter and put me into another charter. The other charter, the work was easier, so I started, you know how you just start chillin’ more, so if I could have stayed in [the] magnet, I would have been cool. The work was harder, but that was like on my pace. It gave me a challenge.
Harold would have preferred to stay in the other program; had he been middle-class, he might have. Other researchers have shown middle-class parents successfully intervening to secure their children’s position in high-ranking courses, even when the children do not qualify.45 In Harold’s case, however, there was no such intervention. His parents thought the school would make decisions that were in their son’s best interests.
Moreover, even when the youth requested their parents’ help, successful outcomes were not a certainty. For example, Harold was an avid and talented athlete. He loved basketball, but he had the build of a football player. At his high school, the same teacher coached the football and basketball teams. Worried about damaging his knees, Harold refused to try out for the football team. When, despite being a formidable player, he was not selected for the basketball team, Harold was devastated. He was convinced that the decision reflected the coach’s anger with him for not playing football. After talking to the coach and appealing to the school’s principal proved unsuccessful, Harold wanted to transfer to a different high school, where he could play on a basketball team. He had played with some of the players from that school in a city league: “I knew like a couple of players on their basketball team. . . . I’ve never been a problem child; . . . my grades were average or above average.”
From his perspective, transferring to another public high school seemed a viable option.46 Because there was considerable paperwork involved, he needed his father’s assistance. But Harold’s father’s approach to child rearing precluded this type of involvement. Mr. McAllister depended on educators to handle school matters. He did not routinely approach educators to intervene in school matters. In addition, according to Harold, his father “didn’t really care about basketball. . . . He was boxing and like that’s it.” Mr. McAllister did not pursue the transfer. Harold “sometimes” talked with his mother about these school problems, “but like nothing ever happened.”
The coach’s side of the story is not known; Harold’s interpretation may be wrong. He may have overestimated his prowess. The key point here is that his own efforts to resolve the situa
tion—by talking to the coach and the principal—did not get him on the team. This experience ended up being hugely consequential for Harold. He began working full-time to “take his mind off” basketball. He got off work late, got home even later, and began missing school. In the end, although he had once dreamed of playing college ball, he dropped out of high school. This outcome would have been quite unlikely had Harold been from a middle-class family. Middle-class parents usually have the necessary understanding of the system and the particular knowledge of their own child that bring about successful resolutions when institutional conflicts occur. Also, these parents’ conception of their child-rearing responsibilities includes resolving school conflicts to their own satisfaction. Working-class and poor youth had talents and determination, but they generally did not have adults who were prepared to intervene on their behalf with institutions.
In some instances, however, parents did intervene in schooling, and sometimes successfully. For example, when Wendy had to have multiple knee surgeries and missed weeks of school, her mother arranged for tutors (paid for by the district) to visit the house. Other times, the interventions were fraught with conflict and led to mixed results. Billy, for example, was suspended for throwing a paper ball which hit a teacher. Ms. Yanelli had “witnesses” who insisted that it had not been Billy who threw the ball. She met with the principal but achieved no satisfaction:
He was a really, really nasty man. He wouldn’t even give me a chance. So he wouldn’t let me bring my witnesses down and I said, “Well, I’m going to fight this and if this goes to the school board, I’m going to make sure my witnesses are heard.” And he said, “Well, you do what you got to do.”47
Unequal Childhoods Page 39
