Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life

In an update 10 years later (2003), Lareau revisits the children from the study to “find out whether the differences in child rearing […] had or had not continued over time” (261). The subjects of the study are now between 18-21 years old, and Lareau conducts an interview with each of them as well as key family members. Two of the families renting have become homeowners, and all of the children have managed to “avoid major life difficulties” (261). Lareau finds that class played an important role in shaping these children over the past decade, citing that parental resources affected many children’s ability to be accepted into college. Lareau also asks the families to read Unequal Childhoods and gathers their reactions to how they were represented.

In 2003, the American economy is unstable and going to college is seen as potentially the only way to succeed in a country with fewer and fewer high-paying jobs. This makes competition for these jobs extreme. Lareau finds patterns of parenting style continued for the adolescence of the children in the study. Because of middle-class parents’ continued efforts toward concerted cultivation as well as their knowledge regarding institutions these children gained even further advantages. Middle-class children also continued to attend higher quality schools with more resources and higher academic success, and Lareau argues that since schools decide the expectations of what success means, certain cultures and classes are left behind. In her follow-up interviews, Lareau finds out about the subjects’ experiences with middle/high school, university/college, and work as well as their future prospects and how they view their life as it is today. Lareau codes the research responses based on factors such as “perceptions of parent role [in education]” (267) and independence. She notes that the data gathered in the follow-up study is vastly less reliable than the original study, due to lack of direct observation and reliance on memory.

Lareau first catches up with Melanie Handlon (“white, middle-class” [267]), who continued having trouble with her education and eventually was diagnosed with ADD. She decides to work rather than attend college despite being accepted to one. She finds work boring, so she went to college after all but dropped out quite soon. At the time of the interview, Melanie has no certain plans for the future other than becoming a mother and finishing the cosmetology program she currently attends. Next is Stacey Marshall (Black, middle-class), who grew too tall (in her coach’s words) for gymnastics and took her skills to the basketball court instead. She flourished there and got honors in high school. She is accepted to an Ivy League school, but her parents regret they cannot afford it; she goes to a state school instead, which she reports she enjoys. Garrett Tallinger (white, middle-class) is attending a Catholic university on a basketball scholarship. He did fairly well in grade school and wants to continue playing basketball and eventually start a family. Alexander Williams (Black, middle-class) got into an Ivy League school and is in a program to become a doctor. He worked hard to get there and is proud of where he sits today. Alex reports that despite his success, he is still followed around stores by security at least once a month. He also notes that many of his Black peers felt “shell shock” (272) when they came to college and the student population majority was white. Alex himself did not feel this way only because he grew up with many white schoolmates and teachers.

Next, Lareau talks to the “youths from working-class families” (272). Wendy Driver (white) has a baby daughter and is pregnant with a boy. She is married to a Navy submariner, who is away for six-month rotations, and spends a great deal of time with her parents and extended family. Her grandfather paid for her to attend a Catholic high school, and there she took up athletics and made close friends. She graduated high school, which was a “huge accomplishment” (273) for her and went on to reject her acceptance into college because she was worried she would not be able to do it. She hopes to open a day-care business at home some day. Tyrec Taylor (Black) struggled in high school when he and his friends began getting into trouble after he transferred to Lower Richmond to be with them and play basketball. He was sent to juvenile detention for a time but was released when he was found not guilty. In senior year, Tyrec went to a private school on a loan and graduated high school. He took four college courses but has since been shifting between odd jobs, and when asked about the future, he admits that he is “just hoping [he’ll] be alive” (274). He still lives with his father and has a girlfriend he loves. Billy Yanelli (white) lives at home with both parents. His school life was troubled, as his behavior problems continued and he was suspended several times. He did not graduate high school but got his GED a year later. He has a job as a painter, and his hopes for the future include having a house, a car, and fun.

Lareau then visits the two poor families featured in the study. Katie Brindle (white) is eighteen, has an eighteen-month-old daughter, and a one-bedroom apartment she shares with her daughter and husband. Lareau visits again almost two years later, and Katie has separated from her husband and is working as a maid; “she seems both hopeful and worn out” (276). Katie struggled with delinquency in her youth, and she was expelled from two schools due to drug and alcohol use as well as vandalism. She has a short temper with her daughter and temporarily placed her with a friend so she can stabilize. She wants to earn her GED and get her own apartment to share with her daughter. Harold McAllister (Black) lives with his brother’s family and works at a restaurant as a waiter. He was rejected from the high school basketball team after his coach decided he would be better off in football, which devastated him. Harold wants to go to college some day or open a store and save money. He also hopes to marry. He reports that “seventy percent of [his] friends are dead or in jail” (277) and notes the racial profiling that occurs by police in his old neighborhood.

Lareau notes patterns in the subjects based on their class differences, including a middle-class increased likelihood of graduating high school and attending college, and a low mobility between the classes in a 10-year period. Working-class and poor children more often attended Lower Richmond High School, which has problems with drugs, violence, and poor attendance. The middle-class youth each attended a different high school that received much more funding than Lower Richmond as well as stronger “curriculum, college preparation, and overall reputation” (280). Middle-class youth were also more likely to be referred to white-collar jobs during and after high school, and working-class and poor youth started work at younger ages. Middle-class youth like Stacey report significant benefits from the activities they were enrolled in, such as working as a team and developing courage and self-esteem. Working-class and poor youth overwhelmingly report deaths of friends and family to Lareau, largely at the hands of neighborhood violence. They also report racial profiling and harassment by police, although Alexander does too. Worthy of notice is Billy’s report that a friend of his moved out of Lower Richmond into a middle-class neighborhood and school. Billy witnessed a massive transformation in which his friend began caring about his studies and dressing differently as well as acting more respectful. Billy says he wishes he grew up in a neighborhood like that, stating “they have it a lot easier in terms of life” (285). Lareau explains that working-class and poor people often develop a sense of inferiority in this regard and cites her observation that the middle-class youth did not seem aware of the influence their class position was having on their success. Instead, they see it as the result of “their own hard work and individual achievement” (286).

Lareau hears about similarities and differences in the way class influenced the subjects of the study. All parents had wishes of success for their children, but resources backing up the achievement of this goal varied as well as the level of assertiveness parents took in their children’s high school and college educations. Youth in the working-class are seen as grown adults by their parents, and middle-class youth are still supported heavily by their parents in many cases. Knowledge of the college application process was lower or absent in working-class and poor families, largely due to Lower Richmond’s lack of resources to help children and families with this process. There are also different values among families of varying classes, with working-class and poor families putting a stronger emphasis on high school graduation than college, and vice versa for the middle-class. Working-class and poor parents also often lack the time and resources to be as involved in their children’s schooling. Common misunderstandings and simple mistakes sometimes led to widespread consequences. Lareau finds that concerted cultivation and the accomplishment of natural growth followed the families throughout their children’s lives, and similar problems were encountered.

Parents’ interventions in education, in both the middle-class and working-class, were sometimes successful and sometimes rejected. The types of interventions varied, with parents in the middle-class often intervening for their children’s access into certain programs and working-class/poor parents intervening for school suspensions, arrests, and the grief that accompanies loss. More middle-class youth attended college than the working-class and poor subjects, but Lareau also notes that there was variety within the middle class in terms of college attendance as well, with one middle-class subject choosing not to attend college. Lareau observes that while the working-class and poor children seemed younger and livelier at the time of the original study, the reverse now seemed to be true; middle-class children had more excitement about their futures. Lareau concludes the chapter with the reminder that the American Dream of upward mobility, while possible, is not the likely outcome for most; “because social class is a significant force, existing social inequality gets reproduced over time, regardless of each new generation’s aspirations, talent, effort, and imagination” (305). She urges that research on the influence of class and peoples’ conceptualizations of mobility needs to be prioritized and widened, with a heavier focus on factors like informal knowledge of institutions and language use. Lareau asserts that the “drawbacks of middle-class life” (307) should be further examined as well as research on the advantages of the accomplishment of natural growth approach.