I am not sure how to describe my feelings after ready "Garrett Tallinger." Throughout the reading I had a mix of emotions, ranging from anger, sadness, and perhaps even jealousy. One of the first things that struck me reading about the Tallinger family was the very definition of "middle class." Going in, even after our exercise from the other week, I had a very different definition. I thought in my own life before the exercise, that I was middle class, and I do feel very differently about that now. I don't mean this in a negative way, just comparing my life to the Tallingers seemed very different.
As a middle class family, the Tallingers seem very modern Ozzie and Harriet. Lareau describes their "moderate" income (at 175,000 between the two of them) living in a very nice accommodating house, good neighbor, three nice boys, etc. But I found that there seemed to be a very dark underbelly to their whole life.
The Tallinger boys are being exposed to what their parents want them to associate with middle class--including, in my eyes, the lack of any real race besides their own. Lareau comments that, "Garrett's friends are white, as are most of the people he interacts with, whether he is at home, at school, or on the playing field" (42). The most exposure Garrett got was that "his all white baseball team occasionally plays teams that include Black children" (42). Of course, notice, the team isn't all Black, they just have included Black children on their team. All of this just reeked of racism, perhaps not overt, but just so deeply ingrained into their way of life. It again reinforces the idea of White americans being the social movers and money makers, while other races struggle to compete.
I wondered how truly happy the Tallingers are in their life when "the centerpiece of the Tallinger children's lives is their organized activities...children's activities create substantial work for their parents" (46-47). While I think extracurricular activities are wonderful for children and young adults, I feel like a line does need to be drawn. I'm not really sure what true enjoyment these kids were getting out of their activities, because to me it seemed more like work than anything.
And yet, at the same time, the Tallinger children seemed to show an air of entitlement to not only their sports practices, but their education and material things at home. They seem to not want or need for anything (except for in the case of Sam, more parental closeness, in my opinion). Maybe entitlement is the wrong word, but they accept these "things" as nothing out of the ordinary. The parents and children overbook themselves, and then must choose between things like spending a day together as a family on Father's day, and soccer and baseball games (49).
Of course the parents hold some responsibility in all this. They, after all, facilitate all these different activities for the children, and bear the sole financial responsibility for it. They want their children to be their definition of successful, even at the cost of late mortgage payments. As a result, I feel the Tallinger children are learning one thing while their parents are doing another. The baseball picture scenario is a perfect example of this, and one that really irked me.
And its not just financial responsibilities, I worried about their children's self esteem as well. for example, when one of their kids docent fit into their cookie cutter mould, as in the case of Spencer, he is deemed "average." Why? Because Mr. Tallinger decided so as he states, "sports just come naturally to us...he knows he couldn't compete with him. Garrett is so much better" (55). If I was irked before, this statement downright infuriated me.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Lareau Reading Response
I found this article fascinating. I too am surrounded by families just like the Tallingers. I had no trouble understanding that social class affects the way kids lives are "managed" but my feelings about this bordered on nausea.
I was sickened by Garrett's parents who shuttled him around from one activity to another with barely a chance to breathe or cultivate some autonomy. Yes, it's great to encourage a child's strengths, but to race from one soccer game to another to the detriment of the rest of the family members is just insane.
The Tallingers were more than eager to clip out of town for a soccer game, but I didn't pick up on the same level of interest for educational pursuits. Don and Louise made sure their kids were getting their homework done, but where is the creativity? Creativity often comes as a result of having to do without. The Tallinger kids were given all the amenities at the risk of family finances. There are all kinds of advantages to league and school sports programs but there are also invaluable lessons that kids can get in their own back yards without mommy and daddy looking on. I couldn't believe that this family couldn't cut back on some of the sports programs so that they'd be more financially stable. Couldn't they suggest that Garrett pull back to just two sports? And what happens to Garrett if he doesn't make the college team? Are his interests varied enough to enable him to find happiness in other venues?
I keep thinking of Thoreau's words from Walden "...simplify, simplify!" Walden Pond seems about as far removed from this upper middle class family as earth to Pluto. Where's the common sense? Where's the fun? I know these parents would be deemed more than able by today's standards, but maybe today's standards are skewed.
I was also saddened by the fact that Garrett was innocent of any knowledge of his family's finances. He never hears "We can't afford it". Instead, "He takes for granted the fact that his parents can afford the cost of clothing, groceries, fast food, cars, medical appointments, and assorted activities...(60). I sure hope Garrett and his brothers get very good jobs when they graduate from college. Otherwise they'll be just a few of the millions whose credit card debt is driven up by wanting it all RIGHT NOW!
I felt this article was a sad commentary on the middle class. I was disheartened by the kids who played organized sports exclusively and whose fun had to be penciled onto the calendar as "play dates". It just seems that this family is not really living, but personifying a pinball machine where the silver balls furiously bounce back and forth against the bumpers until they finally fall to end the game.
Posted by Chris Bradley 9/17/08
I was sickened by Garrett's parents who shuttled him around from one activity to another with barely a chance to breathe or cultivate some autonomy. Yes, it's great to encourage a child's strengths, but to race from one soccer game to another to the detriment of the rest of the family members is just insane.
The Tallingers were more than eager to clip out of town for a soccer game, but I didn't pick up on the same level of interest for educational pursuits. Don and Louise made sure their kids were getting their homework done, but where is the creativity? Creativity often comes as a result of having to do without. The Tallinger kids were given all the amenities at the risk of family finances. There are all kinds of advantages to league and school sports programs but there are also invaluable lessons that kids can get in their own back yards without mommy and daddy looking on. I couldn't believe that this family couldn't cut back on some of the sports programs so that they'd be more financially stable. Couldn't they suggest that Garrett pull back to just two sports? And what happens to Garrett if he doesn't make the college team? Are his interests varied enough to enable him to find happiness in other venues?
I keep thinking of Thoreau's words from Walden "...simplify, simplify!" Walden Pond seems about as far removed from this upper middle class family as earth to Pluto. Where's the common sense? Where's the fun? I know these parents would be deemed more than able by today's standards, but maybe today's standards are skewed.
I was also saddened by the fact that Garrett was innocent of any knowledge of his family's finances. He never hears "We can't afford it". Instead, "He takes for granted the fact that his parents can afford the cost of clothing, groceries, fast food, cars, medical appointments, and assorted activities...(60). I sure hope Garrett and his brothers get very good jobs when they graduate from college. Otherwise they'll be just a few of the millions whose credit card debt is driven up by wanting it all RIGHT NOW!
I felt this article was a sad commentary on the middle class. I was disheartened by the kids who played organized sports exclusively and whose fun had to be penciled onto the calendar as "play dates". It just seems that this family is not really living, but personifying a pinball machine where the silver balls furiously bounce back and forth against the bumpers until they finally fall to end the game.
Posted by Chris Bradley 9/17/08
Unequal Childhoods
Parents and schools are facilitators of different kinds of literacy and at different levels. It is often debated which institution is responsible for the teaching of which types of literacy and to what extent. Due to differences in parenting, an assortment of life skills courses has been added to the public school's curriculum: Family and Consumer Science, Financial Management, Sex Education (known fondly as abstinence ed), Study Skills, Childhood Development, and Basic Reading. Such courses are a response to the readiness with which a student enters the educational system, the limited success achieved in core academic courses, and participation in activities once considered to be (or widely deluded to be) reserved for adults.
Labeau's exploration of concerted cultivation identifies childhood activities as a source of literacy acquisition. The levels and types of this acquisition, occurring outside of the school, can be hypothesized to affect or even determine the level of success a student is to have within a school system designed to mimic and prepare students for the dominant ideological and institutional structures of the particular society.
At the end of Labeau's example she enumerates the skills acquired from organized team sports, along with their advantages and disadvantages. Yet questions that arose during the reading of Labeau's introduction remained unanswered. Labeau emphasizes the difference in time spent with adults between middle and lower income families. She shows that the middle class family (which the Tallinger's were not) has a highly scheduled and child-oriented routine for the purpose of developing skills applicable to the "institutional world."(39) Labeau also makes insinuations that the lower class family, due to economic struggle, must focus on day-to-day survival, also a level of skill development for survival in the institutional world, though perhaps unplanned by the caregiver and distinct as a survival of a different kind. My primary inquiry has to do with the affects of time spent with adults on language development and other areas of functional literacy. Though one might believe that a child whose organized activities places them in contact with adults more frequently may develop a more advanced and mature understanding of language, it also seems plausible that the hectic schedule kept by these children does not allow sustained periods of contact with adults and therefore may breed misunderstanding of certain word use by its lack of context.
I was also interested in Labeau's comments on the effects of such literacy development on standardized test performance. I'd like to explore this further in the context of standardized testings current function in governmental attempts to "bridge the gap" between minority student achievement and that of white students. If what Labeau says is true, than her work may validate the assertion that standardized testing does more to create further distinction between students of different ethnic and economic backgrounds than to facilitate the creation of a more equitable system of education.
Labeau's exploration of concerted cultivation identifies childhood activities as a source of literacy acquisition. The levels and types of this acquisition, occurring outside of the school, can be hypothesized to affect or even determine the level of success a student is to have within a school system designed to mimic and prepare students for the dominant ideological and institutional structures of the particular society.
At the end of Labeau's example she enumerates the skills acquired from organized team sports, along with their advantages and disadvantages. Yet questions that arose during the reading of Labeau's introduction remained unanswered. Labeau emphasizes the difference in time spent with adults between middle and lower income families. She shows that the middle class family (which the Tallinger's were not) has a highly scheduled and child-oriented routine for the purpose of developing skills applicable to the "institutional world."(39) Labeau also makes insinuations that the lower class family, due to economic struggle, must focus on day-to-day survival, also a level of skill development for survival in the institutional world, though perhaps unplanned by the caregiver and distinct as a survival of a different kind. My primary inquiry has to do with the affects of time spent with adults on language development and other areas of functional literacy. Though one might believe that a child whose organized activities places them in contact with adults more frequently may develop a more advanced and mature understanding of language, it also seems plausible that the hectic schedule kept by these children does not allow sustained periods of contact with adults and therefore may breed misunderstanding of certain word use by its lack of context.
I was also interested in Labeau's comments on the effects of such literacy development on standardized test performance. I'd like to explore this further in the context of standardized testings current function in governmental attempts to "bridge the gap" between minority student achievement and that of white students. If what Labeau says is true, than her work may validate the assertion that standardized testing does more to create further distinction between students of different ethnic and economic backgrounds than to facilitate the creation of a more equitable system of education.
Posted for Sandy
Lareau Blog
I’m not even sure which facet to address first. Do I merely concur with Lareau when she concludes that there is a distinct difference in the organization of family life between working-class families and middle-class families and discuss how her findings coincide with the “quiz” on the differences between working-class people, middle-class people, and wealthy people? Do I compare Lareau’s findings with the experiences of Rose and Shaughnessy and discuss how middle-class children have a seemingly huge advantage over working-class children when it comes to basic job skills and “other real-world advantages” provided to them through participation in organized activities? Or, do I suggest that the “broad horizons” and exposure to “typically adult experiences” directly translate into a higher level of literacy (62)? To that last question I answer yes and no—it depends on what we deem to be the definition of literacy (I hate to open this Pandora’s Box again, but it begs to be opened here!). If working-class children remain in the working class and are considered “socially literate,” do they need the skills procured by the middle-class children? Or shall we assume that these skills translate into a “literacy” that is necessary to become part of a higher social class? From her study of middle-class children and families like Garrett Tallinger and the Tallinger family, Lareau concludes that “middle-class children not only acquire a variety of important life skills, but they also have repeated opportunities to practice those skills” and that the “approach to child-rearing” in middle-class homes “meshes seamlessly with the practices and values of society’s dominant institutions” (63). Interestingly, she then discusses the “costs” of the “concerted cultivation” attributed to growing up in a middle-class family and alludes to her next chapters as they explain how “the approach to child rearing by working class parents does have real advantages for children” (65). I must admit, I was excited to read another chapter or two when I realized that was all Julie gave us. Was this intentional or merely an attempt to save trees? I vote intentional.
I cannot possibly continue with this blog without first standing tall on my soapbox, ready and willing to share my ire. I know many Garrett Tallingers and many Tallinger families. Neighborhoods surrounding me are full of them; they’re not hard to come by in these parts. Soccer practice and games, baseball practice and games, football practice and games, softball practice and games, swim team practice and meets, swimming lessons, cheerleading practice (and sometime games, but more often just plain competition), field hockey practice and games, karate lessons, piano lessons, guitar lessons, voice lessons, dance lessons, gymnastics, Wednesday night catechism, fast food eaten at the game or on the go: these (and more to be sure) have become the mainstay of many middle-class American families. As I read through Garrett’s story, I became once again disgusted and repulsed by what some parents consider important, and even crucial, in their quest to prepare Johnny or Suzy for life. You may wonder what I mean by once again. When my children were the age of the Tallinger children, these annoying and, at times obnoxious, parents disgusted and repulsed me; their children’s activities ruled their lives. Just like the Tallingers, both parents worked. Just like the Tallingers, the children were involved in two or more sports and two or more other activities that required money, driving, and time. Just like the Tallingers, these parents “were racing from activity to activity” (Lareau). Just like the Tallingers, these families spent little time eating a family meal at home, bonding over the occasional piece of chicken or plate of spaghetti. Just like the Tallingers, their children had little down time and were often so exhausted they could barely make it through school and homework. They, too, may have claimed that they were preparing their sons/daughters for adulthood, for life. But was that really their goal? Was that really the goal of the Tallingers? Is that the goal of today’s middle-class parents who have even added to the mix lavish birthday parties where eight-year-olds go rock climbing rather than play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey? What it all boils down to is this: some are living vicariously through their children; some feel their children must have what they didn’t; and some are on a mission to prove that not only can they buy the most stuff, but they can do the most stuff; or even a combination of all three. It was clear to me that the Tallingers were just another set of parents who risked financial ruin so they could keep up with their “neighbors” as well as provide for their children what they didn’t have, because, after all, they turned out to be horrible people who had to save their children from the same fate. Seriously, what did they really accomplish? Whoever dies with the most toys and trophies wins? Poor Garrett Tallinger and all the other Garrett Tallingers out there. You just gotta love American materialism and competition!
I will admit that my children were involved in activities and that often our lives did revolve around those activities. But I like to think that we didn’t completely succumb to the “pressures” of our social class. They played one sport at a time; they played one instrument at a time. We ate meals together and avoided fast food as much as possible (who can resist eating an occasional hotdog at a football, baseball or softball game?). They often played unstructured outside with other children or even just with each other. With respect to children’s activities, we fell between the working class and middle class. At first it was a money issue. We didn’t have the funds for all the registration fees and uniforms and supplies and whatever else is needed for the respective activity. But even when we could, we didn’t. It didn’t feel right. And we never felt the need to live vicariously through them or inundate them with opportunities we didn’t have or keep up with all of their peers and parents. Looking back I know we made the right choices. But I’m not so naïve to think that working-class boys and girls would not benefit from participation in organized activities and various types of lessons depending upon preference. As Lareau so adeptly points out, the working class are definitely at a disadvantage in world that highly values competition and life lessons learned from sports and other activities. But questions remain. Do skills learned from participation in these activities directly translate into literacy? If so, what kind? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Can balance be achieved?
So, what is the true secret to achieving literacy? It’s a combination of parents reading to their children and modeling for their children as they read themselves. That’s it in a nutshell. That was the one gift the Tallingers gave to their children, the one defining factor that seems to be common among middle-class families. Oftentimes working-class parents are too exhausted keeping up with the demands of existence and maintenance that reading to their children and even reading for their own pleasure are relegated alongside all the other unnecessary tasks. In my humble opinion (and after reading Shaughnessy and the bit of Lareau), this is what actually separates the middle class from the working class, seriously placing the working-class children at a noticeable disadvantage.
I’m not even sure which facet to address first. Do I merely concur with Lareau when she concludes that there is a distinct difference in the organization of family life between working-class families and middle-class families and discuss how her findings coincide with the “quiz” on the differences between working-class people, middle-class people, and wealthy people? Do I compare Lareau’s findings with the experiences of Rose and Shaughnessy and discuss how middle-class children have a seemingly huge advantage over working-class children when it comes to basic job skills and “other real-world advantages” provided to them through participation in organized activities? Or, do I suggest that the “broad horizons” and exposure to “typically adult experiences” directly translate into a higher level of literacy (62)? To that last question I answer yes and no—it depends on what we deem to be the definition of literacy (I hate to open this Pandora’s Box again, but it begs to be opened here!). If working-class children remain in the working class and are considered “socially literate,” do they need the skills procured by the middle-class children? Or shall we assume that these skills translate into a “literacy” that is necessary to become part of a higher social class? From her study of middle-class children and families like Garrett Tallinger and the Tallinger family, Lareau concludes that “middle-class children not only acquire a variety of important life skills, but they also have repeated opportunities to practice those skills” and that the “approach to child-rearing” in middle-class homes “meshes seamlessly with the practices and values of society’s dominant institutions” (63). Interestingly, she then discusses the “costs” of the “concerted cultivation” attributed to growing up in a middle-class family and alludes to her next chapters as they explain how “the approach to child rearing by working class parents does have real advantages for children” (65). I must admit, I was excited to read another chapter or two when I realized that was all Julie gave us. Was this intentional or merely an attempt to save trees? I vote intentional.
I cannot possibly continue with this blog without first standing tall on my soapbox, ready and willing to share my ire. I know many Garrett Tallingers and many Tallinger families. Neighborhoods surrounding me are full of them; they’re not hard to come by in these parts. Soccer practice and games, baseball practice and games, football practice and games, softball practice and games, swim team practice and meets, swimming lessons, cheerleading practice (and sometime games, but more often just plain competition), field hockey practice and games, karate lessons, piano lessons, guitar lessons, voice lessons, dance lessons, gymnastics, Wednesday night catechism, fast food eaten at the game or on the go: these (and more to be sure) have become the mainstay of many middle-class American families. As I read through Garrett’s story, I became once again disgusted and repulsed by what some parents consider important, and even crucial, in their quest to prepare Johnny or Suzy for life. You may wonder what I mean by once again. When my children were the age of the Tallinger children, these annoying and, at times obnoxious, parents disgusted and repulsed me; their children’s activities ruled their lives. Just like the Tallingers, both parents worked. Just like the Tallingers, the children were involved in two or more sports and two or more other activities that required money, driving, and time. Just like the Tallingers, these parents “were racing from activity to activity” (Lareau). Just like the Tallingers, these families spent little time eating a family meal at home, bonding over the occasional piece of chicken or plate of spaghetti. Just like the Tallingers, their children had little down time and were often so exhausted they could barely make it through school and homework. They, too, may have claimed that they were preparing their sons/daughters for adulthood, for life. But was that really their goal? Was that really the goal of the Tallingers? Is that the goal of today’s middle-class parents who have even added to the mix lavish birthday parties where eight-year-olds go rock climbing rather than play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey? What it all boils down to is this: some are living vicariously through their children; some feel their children must have what they didn’t; and some are on a mission to prove that not only can they buy the most stuff, but they can do the most stuff; or even a combination of all three. It was clear to me that the Tallingers were just another set of parents who risked financial ruin so they could keep up with their “neighbors” as well as provide for their children what they didn’t have, because, after all, they turned out to be horrible people who had to save their children from the same fate. Seriously, what did they really accomplish? Whoever dies with the most toys and trophies wins? Poor Garrett Tallinger and all the other Garrett Tallingers out there. You just gotta love American materialism and competition!
I will admit that my children were involved in activities and that often our lives did revolve around those activities. But I like to think that we didn’t completely succumb to the “pressures” of our social class. They played one sport at a time; they played one instrument at a time. We ate meals together and avoided fast food as much as possible (who can resist eating an occasional hotdog at a football, baseball or softball game?). They often played unstructured outside with other children or even just with each other. With respect to children’s activities, we fell between the working class and middle class. At first it was a money issue. We didn’t have the funds for all the registration fees and uniforms and supplies and whatever else is needed for the respective activity. But even when we could, we didn’t. It didn’t feel right. And we never felt the need to live vicariously through them or inundate them with opportunities we didn’t have or keep up with all of their peers and parents. Looking back I know we made the right choices. But I’m not so naïve to think that working-class boys and girls would not benefit from participation in organized activities and various types of lessons depending upon preference. As Lareau so adeptly points out, the working class are definitely at a disadvantage in world that highly values competition and life lessons learned from sports and other activities. But questions remain. Do skills learned from participation in these activities directly translate into literacy? If so, what kind? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Can balance be achieved?
So, what is the true secret to achieving literacy? It’s a combination of parents reading to their children and modeling for their children as they read themselves. That’s it in a nutshell. That was the one gift the Tallingers gave to their children, the one defining factor that seems to be common among middle-class families. Oftentimes working-class parents are too exhausted keeping up with the demands of existence and maintenance that reading to their children and even reading for their own pleasure are relegated alongside all the other unnecessary tasks. In my humble opinion (and after reading Shaughnessy and the bit of Lareau), this is what actually separates the middle class from the working class, seriously placing the working-class children at a noticeable disadvantage.
Add Lareau to Shaughnessy and Rose and what do you get?
I just spent a huge amount of time writing a blog only to get error messages when I try to publish it. I will just end up sending it to Julie (I have it saved on Word and had no problem when I did it this way before), but I may try to publish again if I have time. Sorry!
Monday, September 15, 2008
"Where goes Spencer" Or trying to make sense of differences
Well. . ."life is about choices". Maybe that is where I will start. But, then again. . . "sometimes there are fewer choices" or "sometimes you can only do your best". I feel we are doing much in this class to talk about Literacy as a function of maintaining the middle class or providing the means for upward mobility. Unfortunately, with the present economy, single parent households, divorced households, inequalities of education, and the isolation from extended families (for whatever reason) the lines between poverty and middle class are not marked in stone. As we discovered when we took "A Little Test", literacy is about connecting with our world. Functional literacy allows people to live in different worlds with different group membership. The fluid knowledge that comes from a wide exposure to ideas, people, and activities takes on different forms in Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life, particularly when we put our personal narrative to her narratives.
For those who can remember back to a philosophy class, recollect the tale of John Stuart Mills. His early training was an early example of Lareau's "commitment to concerted cultivation" (48). The possibilities of spontaneity, creativity, and self-exploration were replaced with concrete structure, rewards, and commitments. He was a child prodigy who suffered bouts of depression and self-doubt until he grew to evaluate his self-worth with the help of others outside his immediate family. He did not turn his back on everything he had been taught, BUT he did modify his life. Most important to my point, his life changed as he grew. He learned through trial and error what was right and wrong for him. But everything built on the foundation he received as a child. He was secure enough in himself to make the choices his own.
There is a scenario I would like to discuss from page 55. This is where the Tallingers talk about Spencer's interest in science and their lack of interest (could it be because of their lack of literacy) in science. Very telling is the statement by Don "I usually don't think of going out and collecting spiders or doing something that Spencer would like. He's interested in science. I usually don't think about that." I believe this dialogue addresses the issues of difference between students and children as well as the work required for providing a foundation for those differences. Who in this article is making the judgement as to the type of literacy? I would say the parent. I acknowledge every parent can not know everything from soccer rules to volcano science projects to math homework to leisure reading. But we need to ask: are parents and teachers providing children the means to find the resources to become literate in fields of their choice? There is a fine line between the benefits and dangers of absolute structure and unsupervised activities. It would be interesting to see how each of the Tallinger children fair by age 25. Are they living the middle-class dream (for want of another phrase) ? What do they remember of their younger years? What is their relationships with their parents and siblings?
I think I focused on Spencer because I had three children with three distinct personalities, interests, and academic capabilities. All three took much of my time as a parent. I would make many of the same choices today, but it was tiring and labor intense as I tried to find the resources to nurture their interests. Before I was divorced, my husband was more active then other husbands-but I was still the mainstay ( I worked 30 hours a week, but adjusted my schedule frequently). After I was divorced and my children were in the busy high school years, I did even more. Money was more of an issue as was my time to scheduling for all of our activities. I still believed in a well-rounded literacy that included art, science, sports, reading, etc. Our life style did change but promoting a love of learning never disappeared. We were in this world together. But I was realistic enough to know that once the children left my front door and went around the corner, all I could do was hope they would remember something of what I had tried to give them.
I am reminded of Kahil Gibran speaking in his wonderful book, The Prophet, when he addresses children and says "You may give them your love but not your thoughts, for they have their own thoughts . . . for their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams". But, I believe, equally important is his observation of the foundation we give our children. That foundation becomes the basis for his description of the function of knowledge as that which, "no man can reveal to you aught but that which already lives half asleep in the dawning of your knowledge".
Beyond the "concerted cultivation" discussed in this article of appearances, achievement, and rules of etiquette is the ethics of being a part of a world. No where in the Tallinger story is a true show of compassion for other people. Given the uncertainty in today's society, the literacy of compassion might be one of the most important foundations we teach our children.
For those who can remember back to a philosophy class, recollect the tale of John Stuart Mills. His early training was an early example of Lareau's "commitment to concerted cultivation" (48). The possibilities of spontaneity, creativity, and self-exploration were replaced with concrete structure, rewards, and commitments. He was a child prodigy who suffered bouts of depression and self-doubt until he grew to evaluate his self-worth with the help of others outside his immediate family. He did not turn his back on everything he had been taught, BUT he did modify his life. Most important to my point, his life changed as he grew. He learned through trial and error what was right and wrong for him. But everything built on the foundation he received as a child. He was secure enough in himself to make the choices his own.
There is a scenario I would like to discuss from page 55. This is where the Tallingers talk about Spencer's interest in science and their lack of interest (could it be because of their lack of literacy) in science. Very telling is the statement by Don "I usually don't think of going out and collecting spiders or doing something that Spencer would like. He's interested in science. I usually don't think about that." I believe this dialogue addresses the issues of difference between students and children as well as the work required for providing a foundation for those differences. Who in this article is making the judgement as to the type of literacy? I would say the parent. I acknowledge every parent can not know everything from soccer rules to volcano science projects to math homework to leisure reading. But we need to ask: are parents and teachers providing children the means to find the resources to become literate in fields of their choice? There is a fine line between the benefits and dangers of absolute structure and unsupervised activities. It would be interesting to see how each of the Tallinger children fair by age 25. Are they living the middle-class dream (for want of another phrase) ? What do they remember of their younger years? What is their relationships with their parents and siblings?
I think I focused on Spencer because I had three children with three distinct personalities, interests, and academic capabilities. All three took much of my time as a parent. I would make many of the same choices today, but it was tiring and labor intense as I tried to find the resources to nurture their interests. Before I was divorced, my husband was more active then other husbands-but I was still the mainstay ( I worked 30 hours a week, but adjusted my schedule frequently). After I was divorced and my children were in the busy high school years, I did even more. Money was more of an issue as was my time to scheduling for all of our activities. I still believed in a well-rounded literacy that included art, science, sports, reading, etc. Our life style did change but promoting a love of learning never disappeared. We were in this world together. But I was realistic enough to know that once the children left my front door and went around the corner, all I could do was hope they would remember something of what I had tried to give them.
I am reminded of Kahil Gibran speaking in his wonderful book, The Prophet, when he addresses children and says "You may give them your love but not your thoughts, for they have their own thoughts . . . for their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams". But, I believe, equally important is his observation of the foundation we give our children. That foundation becomes the basis for his description of the function of knowledge as that which, "no man can reveal to you aught but that which already lives half asleep in the dawning of your knowledge".
Beyond the "concerted cultivation" discussed in this article of appearances, achievement, and rules of etiquette is the ethics of being a part of a world. No where in the Tallinger story is a true show of compassion for other people. Given the uncertainty in today's society, the literacy of compassion might be one of the most important foundations we teach our children.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Tallinger Family
Wow. I finally disagree with an assigned reading (well, portions of it). I sometimes don't like the readings, but that didn't mean I disagreed with them. One statement in the Lareau reading I took offense to was on page 39. It reads: "They (middle-class kids in sports) learn to think of themselves as special and as entitled to receive certain kinds of services from adults." I'm not sure, after finishing the reading, that she remembered she even wrote it. She did not prove to me that this blanket statement was the case with the Tallinger family. Overscheduled, tired, and sometimes cranky, yes. Entitled? Didn't see it. Entitled to being driven around? Isn't that a given as a parent who signs their kids up for sports? I also did not like that certain conversations were chosen to depict a less-than-ideal father-son relationship on page 46. She was referring to a rather short-answered exhange between Garrett and Mr. Tallinger. "...this exchange constitutes the sum total of the father-son interaction...this kind of dialogue occurs...commonly." Really? Didn't she mention more than once that Mr. Tallinger was the most involved of all the fathers in her field study? Was it late at night? maybe they were both tired? She wrote more than once about the work schedules and hectic sports schedules. I just have a hard time with ideas being taken out of context for the sake of proving her own preconceived points. I want to know the whole conversation. Then I can have an informed opinion if I am forced to.
I do agree that kids can be overscheduled. My children are each involved in one sport. Each has practice 2 days a week. They are all on different days. Since I am the one who was home for so many years, even being back at work does not entitle me to a night off from cooking, although it should. If I want to order in, I have to suggest it myself. I have to say that a short-answered exchange similar to the father-son exchange mentioned above could definitley be noted on nights like these. My kids aren't overscheduled. I am. My Saturdays are gone because there are soccer games, and pictures, and tournaments. A little of my own venting. What was my point? Oh. Well, let's see. When you have children, they should be first unil they no longer need you to make them first, whether you like it or not. Who knows when that is. Personal decision. But Lareau makes it clear that she thinks even watching kids play sports is "laboring" (page 47) for parents. Come on. So being a supportive parent is now laboring. Watching your child play a sport and they smile at you after a good shot is laboring? This family chose their schedule. They can say no to their kids. The kids can say no to more than one sport. They are over-achievers. Who is anyone to judge how they choose to live their lives? Maybe the busy-ness and all the hustle is what holds them all together. They seem like a generally happy family that's being judged by a lady who had the youngest son kicked out of his room so she could sleep there and eavesdrop on all their conversations.
On page 48, she again writes about a rather annoyed and sometimes loud exchange between Garrett and his father. She makes it sound, to me, like the father is just going nuts over the shorts. Now let's be honest. If there were small flies with cameras stuck to the walls in each of our homes, there's no way this wouldn't be seen in our families, too. How many times did the father ask the son to get his stuff? How annoying must it have been to be ignored? Well, of course we don't read about that. She picks up where Don already has veins popping out of his neck over these shorts and he is yelling at Garrett. Garrett should have gotten his behind off the chair when his father asked him. He knows darn well he has soccer practice.
She tried to make some kind of point with the whole Sam and the party invite. Why? He got to go! Everyone was happy. The end. I am sure this is not the only time is his young life that things worked out just fine. Lareau says on page 44 that Sam asks "Can I go to it?"...knowing that his brothers' schedules may interfere with the time of the party. She tries to gain sympathy from the reader for Sam. Then just as quickly she essentially says that Sam's life gives him time for himself and this is a good thing. But I thought only working-class families were supposed to have time to make their own fun? So, why did she even bother writing this part? She then immediately moves into a contradictory statement (again) on page 45--didnt' she just say that the older boys have no time for themselves? So what is wrong with "waiting" for the next activity? Isn't that unstructured time? She even makes slight fun of "play dates" (which she just had to put in quotes to show the silliness of the whole concept) that the boys go to because the horrible Tallinger family moved to a cul-de-sac that does not have boys the same age. Someone call CPS. This family doesn't do anything right in her eyes.
I'm just not sure of her point. Working class families don't have money to spend on extra-curricular activities. Middle-class kids feel entitled if they are in extra-curricular activites. Working class kids find more time for themselves. Sam is middle class but finds time for himself, although apparently he's not supposed to be able to do this since he's middle-class. Working-class struggles financially. Middle-class does not struggle (or so she says with no proof). Middle-class parents are bored watching their kids play and/or practice. Working-class does not encourage their kids to find something they are good at. So? How about this...let people live the way they are comfortable living. She should stay out of it and rent a hotel room next time she does a field study.
I do agree that kids can be overscheduled. My children are each involved in one sport. Each has practice 2 days a week. They are all on different days. Since I am the one who was home for so many years, even being back at work does not entitle me to a night off from cooking, although it should. If I want to order in, I have to suggest it myself. I have to say that a short-answered exchange similar to the father-son exchange mentioned above could definitley be noted on nights like these. My kids aren't overscheduled. I am. My Saturdays are gone because there are soccer games, and pictures, and tournaments. A little of my own venting. What was my point? Oh. Well, let's see. When you have children, they should be first unil they no longer need you to make them first, whether you like it or not. Who knows when that is. Personal decision. But Lareau makes it clear that she thinks even watching kids play sports is "laboring" (page 47) for parents. Come on. So being a supportive parent is now laboring. Watching your child play a sport and they smile at you after a good shot is laboring? This family chose their schedule. They can say no to their kids. The kids can say no to more than one sport. They are over-achievers. Who is anyone to judge how they choose to live their lives? Maybe the busy-ness and all the hustle is what holds them all together. They seem like a generally happy family that's being judged by a lady who had the youngest son kicked out of his room so she could sleep there and eavesdrop on all their conversations.
On page 48, she again writes about a rather annoyed and sometimes loud exchange between Garrett and his father. She makes it sound, to me, like the father is just going nuts over the shorts. Now let's be honest. If there were small flies with cameras stuck to the walls in each of our homes, there's no way this wouldn't be seen in our families, too. How many times did the father ask the son to get his stuff? How annoying must it have been to be ignored? Well, of course we don't read about that. She picks up where Don already has veins popping out of his neck over these shorts and he is yelling at Garrett. Garrett should have gotten his behind off the chair when his father asked him. He knows darn well he has soccer practice.
She tried to make some kind of point with the whole Sam and the party invite. Why? He got to go! Everyone was happy. The end. I am sure this is not the only time is his young life that things worked out just fine. Lareau says on page 44 that Sam asks "Can I go to it?"...knowing that his brothers' schedules may interfere with the time of the party. She tries to gain sympathy from the reader for Sam. Then just as quickly she essentially says that Sam's life gives him time for himself and this is a good thing. But I thought only working-class families were supposed to have time to make their own fun? So, why did she even bother writing this part? She then immediately moves into a contradictory statement (again) on page 45--didnt' she just say that the older boys have no time for themselves? So what is wrong with "waiting" for the next activity? Isn't that unstructured time? She even makes slight fun of "play dates" (which she just had to put in quotes to show the silliness of the whole concept) that the boys go to because the horrible Tallinger family moved to a cul-de-sac that does not have boys the same age. Someone call CPS. This family doesn't do anything right in her eyes.
I'm just not sure of her point. Working class families don't have money to spend on extra-curricular activities. Middle-class kids feel entitled if they are in extra-curricular activites. Working class kids find more time for themselves. Sam is middle class but finds time for himself, although apparently he's not supposed to be able to do this since he's middle-class. Working-class struggles financially. Middle-class does not struggle (or so she says with no proof). Middle-class parents are bored watching their kids play and/or practice. Working-class does not encourage their kids to find something they are good at. So? How about this...let people live the way they are comfortable living. She should stay out of it and rent a hotel room next time she does a field study.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
