4 ms·

One of the reasons - probably one of the biggest reasons - for continuously lower test scores in America is the quality of the care these children receive. Ove

One of the reasons - probably one of the biggest reasons - for continuously lower test scores in America is the quality of the care these children receive. Over 40% of children in the US are born to unwed mothers, compared to 5% at the beginning of last century. About 70% of unwed childbirth is by black mothers, versus just 24% in 1965. The last two peaks of teenage pregnancy were 1991 and 2007 - so the children of teens have more children, whom are now 10 years old, with 26yr old parents, and whose grandparents are about 42yrs, with great grandparents about 70 years old. The financial and social strain on such families is intense. It's also difficult to be the best parent you can be when you yourself are still not an adult. And it virtually guarantees poverty for these children. There is almost no reasonable assistance given to the families of these children - assistance like food, shelter, access to education, daycare, transportation. Kids are getting left behind not by their school system, but a social system that has ignored them as part of a lower class of society that we'd rather starve and struggle than give assistance to. If you don't believe this, go into a [public] school in Philly, Baltimore, New York, and ask about the grade level of reading comprehension of the kids, what their family life is like, and their economic status. You will see a trend in all three: "poor."

EdSharkey 9y ago
I see the same things you are describing in my city. Are there other countries with high numbers of kids born to unwed, poor mothers that have been successful in educating those kids and getting them out of poverty though? What works? It seems like we have a cultural challenge with poor families to surmount before we can get a meaningful return on investment by increasing social programs for them.
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  It obviously varies by country/region, but not all countries with high rates of unwed parents have the same rates of poverty and poor education. Access to jobs, transportation, lack of institutionalized racism, increased social services, and other factors vary the results. For example, in Europe the rates of unwed parents range from 18% to 55% by country. I think the solutions to problems faced by these parents in adequately raising their children will have to vary based on the impediments they face and the reasons for them.
home_boi 9y ago
The most effective solution for this problem would be to encourage birth control and abortion for populations that are unfit to handle parenthood.
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  Then you'd have to convince conservatives to pay for birth control. It's a double whammy: increased taxes, and giving women agency over their bodies. They hate the idea. (Also it would be tantamount to eugenics, which is pretty much not something anyone would or should want to get political traction on, except maybe from the Alt Right)
topmonk 9y ago
> There is almost no reasonable assistance given to the families of these children - assistance like food, shelter, access to education, daycare, transportation. Yes, there is. You are arguing for more welfare, but welfare caused the problem in the first place: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1672 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=16...
- pirocks 9y ago
  Not too say that the website doesn't have anything useful to say, but is has some very extreme views like , "Muslim efforts to advance the hegemony of Islamic law in the United States by introducing it stealthily and incrementally into American society" http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=124&type=issue http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=124&t...
  - peterwwillis 9y ago
    The website in question is produced by a conservative thinktank led by David Horowitz, who amongst other things, leads a blog called "Jihad Watch". As with most politically-aligned think tanks, the content is designed to convince someone of a particular argument or issue - in this case that "the left" is responsible for the systemic disenfranchisement of African Americans through welfare, rather than say, systemic racism and the gutting of real social welfare by conservatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz#Allegations_of_racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz#Allegations_of_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz#Criticizing_Islamic_organizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz#Criticizing_Isl... (and yes, this is an ad hominem attack, I will reply to the previous commenter with why the article in question was stupid)
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  Sorry, but this article is politically biased crap. The assertion of the article that black women had more babies because they could afford to due to welfare is as laughable as it is insulting. You know how much food assistance families get today? $1.50 per person per meal - when they get food assistance, as there's a variety of factors that prevent getting food assistance. As many as 12.3% of American households are food insecure. Food assistance programs are almost criminally underfunded when you consider the long term costs they have on the youth of the nation and the subsequent impact on the rest of society. There has been a precipitous decline in "shotgun marriages" over the past 40 years as stigmas about unwed mothers changed, women became more sexually liberated, and men felt less need to raise their offspring. Combine this with a lack of jobs, a lack of access to contraceptives and basic sexual health information, a drug war, and institutionalized racism in housing, transportation, education, the judicial system, etc and you build up impoverished communities where unwed pregnancy is significantly more likely. Welfare did not create the oppression of African Americans, and certainly did not encourage unwed pregnancy in African Americans more than anyone else welfare is applied to. Another common trope of this subject: "Just as welfare policies discourage marriage and the formation of stable families, they also discourage the development of a healthy work ethic". But many food assistance programs actually _require you to work_ or you get almost no food assistance - which again, exacerbates these problems, as if you could work, you wouldn't need as much food assistance, and many impoverished black communities don't have enough access to jobs. Yet another ill-advised argument they propose is that some couples stay together and unwed in order to siphon benefits from the government. This is again, ridiculous, as marriage is not a detriment to food assistance. Dozens of states have social welfare programs dedicated solely for two-parent families, and many have programs incentivizing marriage. We have far more unwed mothers, and they need more assistance than wed mothers, hence they receive more benefits. This is a sticking point for many conservatives because they use this as an example of how the "family unit" is being "attacked", with single parents receiving more benefits than married ones. But it only makes sense, as the single parent has less financial and organizational help in raising a child. A huge percentage of welfare is dedicated to programs encouraging people to get married, and be abstinent. Who put these provisions in place? Conservatives, concerned about the lack of focus on the family unit. Google around and you will find thousands of websites talking about the "attack on marriage" that welfare has seemingly caused. I think an excerpt like this sums it up well (from "Blame Welfare, Ignore Poverty and Inequality" (2006)): The [1996 welfare reform] legislation asserts that public assistance (i.e. welfare dependency), not poverty, reinforces personal moral failures, which causes social pathologies. In other words, the consequence has become the cause. Moreover, there is a subtext underlying the "family values" agenda. It is the moral condemnation of alternaitve family structures and particularly the degradation of poor single mothers of color. "Family values" reinforce the racially motivated stereotypes of "poor ghettos", which are supposedly charcterized by promiscuity, irresponsible parenthood, an "epidemic" of teen pregnancies and debilitating welfare dependency. In fact, poverty, unemployment, low wages, and lack of human and social capital are the major causes of single parenthood and marital instability, teen pregnancy, and stunted child development.

EdSharkey 9y ago

I see the same things you are describing in my city. Are there other countries with high numbers of kids born to unwed, poor mothers that have been successful in educating those kids and getting them out of poverty though? What works? It seems like we have a cultural challenge with poor families to surmount before we can get a meaningful return on investment by increasing social programs for them.

peterwwillis 9y ago
It obviously varies by country/region, but not all countries with high rates of unwed parents have the same rates of poverty and poor education. Access to jobs, transportation, lack of institutionalized racism, increased social services, and other factors vary the results. For example, in Europe the rates of unwed parents range from 18% to 55% by country. I think the solutions to problems faced by these parents in adequately raising their children will have to vary based on the impediments they face and the reasons for them.

home_boi 9y ago

The most effective solution for this problem would be to encourage birth control and abortion for populations that are unfit to handle parenthood.

peterwwillis 9y ago
Then you'd have to convince conservatives to pay for birth control. It's a double whammy: increased taxes, and giving women agency over their bodies. They hate the idea. (Also it would be tantamount to eugenics, which is pretty much not something anyone would or should want to get political traction on, except maybe from the Alt Right)

topmonk 9y ago

> There is almost no reasonable assistance given to the families of these children - assistance like food, shelter, access to education, daycare, transportation. Yes, there is. You are arguing for more welfare, but welfare caused the problem in the first place: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1672 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=16...

pirocks 9y ago
Not too say that the website doesn't have anything useful to say, but is has some very extreme views like , "Muslim efforts to advance the hegemony of Islamic law in the United States by introducing it stealthily and incrementally into American society" http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=124&type=issue http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=124&t...
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  The website in question is produced by a conservative thinktank led by David Horowitz, who amongst other things, leads a blog called "Jihad Watch". As with most politically-aligned think tanks, the content is designed to convince someone of a particular argument or issue - in this case that "the left" is responsible for the systemic disenfranchisement of African Americans through welfare, rather than say, systemic racism and the gutting of real social welfare by conservatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz#Allegations_of_racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz#Allegations_of_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz#Criticizing_Islamic_organizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz#Criticizing_Isl... (and yes, this is an ad hominem attack, I will reply to the previous commenter with why the article in question was stupid)
peterwwillis 9y ago
Sorry, but this article is politically biased crap. The assertion of the article that black women had more babies because they could afford to due to welfare is as laughable as it is insulting. You know how much food assistance families get today? $1.50 per person per meal - when they get food assistance, as there's a variety of factors that prevent getting food assistance. As many as 12.3% of American households are food insecure. Food assistance programs are almost criminally underfunded when you consider the long term costs they have on the youth of the nation and the subsequent impact on the rest of society. There has been a precipitous decline in "shotgun marriages" over the past 40 years as stigmas about unwed mothers changed, women became more sexually liberated, and men felt less need to raise their offspring. Combine this with a lack of jobs, a lack of access to contraceptives and basic sexual health information, a drug war, and institutionalized racism in housing, transportation, education, the judicial system, etc and you build up impoverished communities where unwed pregnancy is significantly more likely. Welfare did not create the oppression of African Americans, and certainly did not encourage unwed pregnancy in African Americans more than anyone else welfare is applied to. Another common trope of this subject: "Just as welfare policies discourage marriage and the formation of stable families, they also discourage the development of a healthy work ethic". But many food assistance programs actually _require you to work_ or you get almost no food assistance - which again, exacerbates these problems, as if you could work, you wouldn't need as much food assistance, and many impoverished black communities don't have enough access to jobs. Yet another ill-advised argument they propose is that some couples stay together and unwed in order to siphon benefits from the government. This is again, ridiculous, as marriage is not a detriment to food assistance. Dozens of states have social welfare programs dedicated solely for two-parent families, and many have programs incentivizing marriage. We have far more unwed mothers, and they need more assistance than wed mothers, hence they receive more benefits. This is a sticking point for many conservatives because they use this as an example of how the "family unit" is being "attacked", with single parents receiving more benefits than married ones. But it only makes sense, as the single parent has less financial and organizational help in raising a child. A huge percentage of welfare is dedicated to programs encouraging people to get married, and be abstinent. Who put these provisions in place? Conservatives, concerned about the lack of focus on the family unit. Google around and you will find thousands of websites talking about the "attack on marriage" that welfare has seemingly caused. I think an excerpt like this sums it up well (from "Blame Welfare, Ignore Poverty and Inequality" (2006)): The [1996 welfare reform] legislation asserts that public assistance (i.e. welfare dependency), not poverty, reinforces personal moral failures, which causes social pathologies. In other words, the consequence has become the cause. Moreover, there is a subtext underlying the "family values" agenda. It is the moral condemnation of alternaitve family structures and particularly the degradation of poor single mothers of color. "Family values" reinforce the racially motivated stereotypes of "poor ghettos", which are supposedly charcterized by promiscuity, irresponsible parenthood, an "epidemic" of teen pregnancies and debilitating welfare dependency. In fact, poverty, unemployment, low wages, and lack of human and social capital are the major causes of single parenthood and marital instability, teen pregnancy, and stunted child development.