The effects of race, gender, and family background on children's educational attainment: contemporary patterns and historical change

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content THE EFFECTS OF RACE, GENDER, AND FAMILY BACKGROUND ON CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT: CONTEMPORARY PATTERNS AND HISTORICAL CHANGE Copyright 2005 by Y nez Wilson Hirst A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (SOCIOLOGY) May2005 Y nez Wilson Hirst UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089-1695 This dissertation, written by Under the direction of h d dissertation committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Dean of the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Date Ap-r:i -1 1 5, 2005 Dissertation Committee Chair Dedication For my parents, Robin and Rose Wilson With my unending love and gratitude 11 111 Acknowledgements I would never have completed this task without the support of my family, friends, and colleagues. First and foremost, thank you to the Departments of Sociology and Gerontology at the University of Southern California, including classmates, especially my dear friends Belinda C. Lum and Carmela Lomonaco who have been going through this crazy and life changing process with me; professors; and all support staff, especially Dora Lara, Linda Hall, and Pat Adolph. A special acknowledgement of gratitude to the·members of my committee. I knew the first day of Statistics that Tim Biblarz would be an important person in my graduate school process. Tim, you took a subject that I was afraid of and quite frankly bored by and brought it to life with your remarkable teaching skills, interesting examples, and excitement for the subject. Your style is unique and effective, and it is no wonder you earn such great accolades for your teaching. You took a topic I was passionate about, family, and showed me how to investigate my ideas and theories empirically. You showed me the importance of numbers and statistical findings, but even more so the significance of "parsimony", and the ability to ''talk about it at the dinner table". In the seven years that I have known you, you have also become a friend. Thank you for your mentoring and friendship! I thank Merril Silverstein for his quiet wisdom and calming effect. I can always count on Merril' s good nature and pleasant personality to bring a smile to my face. Like Statistics, Quantitative Methods was not high on the list of classes I was looking forward to taking, but with Merril at the helm; it was not only enjoyable, but also thought provoking and interesting. Your interest in cross-cultural perspectives and race has informed my own research. You have always been supportive, providing both positive and critical feedback to my work. Thank you! IV A special thank you to the larger than life V em Bengtson. From the first time we spoke and worked together, I could sense your respect and support. You are never too busy to answer a question, and always put your students first. These are things that I try to emulate in my own teaching and relationships with students. Much to my surprise, you even sought my guidance and counsel on issues that I felt were beyond my experience level or academic expertise. But you assured me that I had both the ability and intellect to tackle tougher challenges. I greatly enjoyed my time working on the LSOG, and especially my semesters as a teaching assistant in Social Problems. I think I enjoyed listening to your lectures as much as the undergrads. Thank you for being such a supportive mentor and role model! Link, you are my best friend and partner, and a constant source of encouragement, strength, and praise. I love you and am grateful for the life we share, and the family we have created. I know these past years have not always been easy, and that on more than one occasion I was probably difficult to live with. Thank you for your understanding, and for giving me space to work when I needed it. This accomplishment is that much more important to me, because I have you to share it with. Dylan, your laughter, kisses, hugs, and smiles are the best source of motivation a mommy can have. My life is so much richer now that you are a part of it. You have v brought me such joy, and watching you grow up will be my greatest pleasure. And to the precious baby girl growing inside me, even though you aren't even born yet, you really are my most significant motivation as I put the finishing touches on my manuscript. May you grow up with strong feminist role models and ideals, knowing that women are strong, and can succeed in all realms of life with a delicate balance between their private and public spheres. A very heartfelt and special thank you to my parents, Robin and Rose Wilson, for whom I have dedicated this manuscript. You have always been my greatest supporters, and shown me unconditional love. I have never felt pushed by you, just encouraged to follow my dreams and goals. Growing up I was always told that I could achieve my goals, and at times when my dissertation got the best of me, and I didn't believe I could finish, you reassured me, and told me look towards the future. And finally a special thank you to my mother for changing her own work schedule for a year to care for Dylan on the days he was not at preschool; and for always being available at the drop of a hat to babysit, do errands, or cook us a much needed meal so I could focus more time on research and writing. Your generosity and love are more appreciated than you will ever know, and more than I will ever be able to convey in words. I am filled with pride and honor to be part of this circle of family, friends, and academic colleagues. Know that this process was made possible with each of you in your special ways. Thank you all! Vl Table of Contents Dedication ........................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii . fF" . Ltst o tgures .................................................................................................................... tx Abstract ............................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1 -Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 The Moynihan Report ...................................................................................................... 5 Race and Family ............................................................................................................ 13 Conceptual Model and Research Assumptions ............................................................. 15 Conceptual Model .......................................................................................................... 16 Research Organization ................................................................................................... 18 Chapter-by-Chapter Overview ....................................................................................... 19 Chapter 2 - Study Design .................................................................................................. 21 Data ................................................................................................................................ 22 Methods and Constructs ................................................................................................. 26 Chapter 3 - More, Less, or the Same: Does Race Matter? ............................................... 34 The Family Values and Family Decline Debate ........................................................... .35 Fatherlessness ................................................................................................................ 46 Issues Relating to Race and Family ............................................................................... 55 Hypothesis and Supporting and Challenging Theory .................................................... 61 Results ............................................................................................................................ 66 Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................................................ 84 Chapter 4 - Changes of Time: Is the Family Declining in Significance? ......................... 89 Changes Over Time: Family Background and Education ............................................. 90 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................... 1 00 Results .......................................................................................................................... 101 Discussion and Conclusion .......................................................................................... 124 Vll Chapter 5 - Conclusions and Discussions ....................................................................... 128 Segregation in Education: Historical and Contemporary ............................................ 129 Secular Trends and "Rising Tide" ............................................................................... 133 Lack of Change Over Time ......................................................................................... 13 7 Issues Relating to Race and Family ............................................................................. 139 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 145 Appendices ................................................................................................................. ··.··· 153 Vlll List of Tables Table 3.1, Means of Independent and Dependent Variables by Childhood Family Structure and Race ........................................................................................................ 68 Table 3.2, African Americans: Estimates of the Effects of Dimensions of Family Background on Educational Outcomes .......................................................................... 69 Table 3.3, Whites: Estimates of the Effects of Dimensions of Family Background on Educational Outcomes .................................................................................................. 70 Table 3.4, T-Tests for Differences in the Effects of Dimensions of Family Background on Educational Outcomes ............................................................................................. 76 lX List of Figures Figure 1.1, Conceptual Model ........................................................................................... 16 Figure 3.1, Race and Gender Differences in Total Years of Education by Family Type .. 79 Figure 3.2, Race and Gender Differences in High School Graduation by Family Type ... 81 Figure 3.3, Race and Gender Differences in College Entry by Family Type .................... 82 Figure 3.4, Race and Gender Differences in College Graduation by Family Type ........... 83 Figure 4.1, Family Background Differences in total Years ofEducation ....................... 105 Figure 4.2, Family Background Differences in High School Graduation ....................... 1 07 Figure 4.3, Family Background Differences in College Entry ........................................ 1 08 Figure 4.4, Family Background Differences in College Graduation ............................... 110 Figure 4.5, Race Differences in Total Years ofEducation .............................................. 112 Figure 4.6, Race Differences in High School Graduation .............................................. .114 Figure 4.7, Race Differences in College Entry ................................................................ 115 Figure 4.8, Race Differences in College Graduation ....................................................... 116 Figure 4.9, Total Years of Education by Race for Two-Biological Parent Families ....... 119 Figure 4.10, Total Years ofEducation by Race for Alternative Families ....................... 120 Figure 4.11, Family Background Differences in Total Years of Education by Race ...... 121 X Abstract In what ways does childhood family structure affect the long-term educational attainment of African Americans and whites? Are the effects of family structure on educational success similar or different for African American and white children? In what ways has this relationship changed for those born in the 1890's through the 1970's? I examine and track the effects, both cross-sectionally and historically over time, of childhood family structure on the long-term educational attainment patterns of African Americans and whites using pooled data from several nationally representative samples. The primary finding is that there are no racial or gender differences based on childhood family structure in terms of overall educational attainment, entry into college, or college completion. In addition, this pattern has changed little for those born between the 1890's and the 1970's. These findings are important because they serve as a challenge to common sense ideas of race and family, as well as to the concept of progress and change. Contemporary discourse suggests that family structure is highly predictive for one's future educational attainment, particularly for African Americans who are more likely to experience "alternative" family structures. Testing this assumption, I find that dimensions of family background are weakening in terms of their predictive ability for long-term educational attainment. For African Americans, this trend is even more significant than it is for whites. xi A notion of progress and change is central to the American ethos. The findings are inconsistent with this rhetoric when the "rising tide" idea is taken into account. The "rising tide" suggests that natural growth has more to do with the factor of time than a discernable paradigm shift or social phenomenon. This is certainly the case when one looks at the changing pattern of long-term educational attainment for those born in the early and later cohorts. Over time, there is a gradual increase in the average education for both whites and African Americans. What remains, though, from the earliest to the latest cohorts is a marked and consistent race gap in achievement. I suggest that structural racism and ineffective public policy explain the persistent race gap. Chapter 1 - Introduction Contemporary and popular discourse focuses on "the family". It is impossible to watch the evening news, or read the daily newspaper without being bombarded with images and stories about families. We hear that divorce is on the rise, more women are joining the workforce, men and women are delaying or even forgoing marriage, and that more and more children are being raised by single mothers. Each of these trends on their own seems innocuous enough, but when they are tied inextricably to the larger notion of "the decline of the family", as they often are, they become fodder for a cultural fire. Encompassed under the umbrella of the "family values debate" are a number of contemporary political and social debates and discourses. Among them are discussions about the importance of fathers and the negative impact of fatherlessness, a strong critique against single mothers, as well as a critique against divorce, and most recently a movement to define who is able to marry, and to construct marriage as a purely heterosexual right and privilege. 1 By constructing the above mentioned issues in terms of values and individuals, we lose sight of the ways in which they are being used to create an environment of blaming and scapegoating for larger more structurally based events and inequalities. In this sense, cultural and social commentaries replace institutional critiques. In the most basic terms, "we" blame individuals (and individual family arrangements) for gaps in education and economic success, choosing to ignore the larger structures and institutions that maintain the status quo of racial and gender inequality. This trend is particularly clear within current political discussions that attempt to define family, ethics, and universal morality. The purpose, therefore, of my research is to bring social scientific and empirical realism to the current political and social debates surrounding issues of family. To this end, I use large-scale nationally representative data to explore a number of research questions. In addition, I connect micro-level social processes with macro-level structural processes with the understanding that the two are far from mutually exclusive. They impact each other in significant ways. 2 As will be discussed later in this introductory chapter, my study contains two empirical chapters that delve into specific, but related, topics regarding family, race, gender, and long-term education. Embedded within family discourse is an assumption that family structure is the key to understanding childhood outcomes. Further, there is an assumption that family structure plays an even larger role in the lives of African American children. In the first empirical chapter, I explore this assumption regarding race and family structure. Guiding the first empirical chapter is the following research question. Is childhood family structure more, less, or equally consequential for the educational achievement of African American children relative to that of white children? In the second empirical chapter, I introduce the time. That is, I am interested in determining how the associations between childhood family structure and long-term educational attainment have remained consistent or changed. Using my large-scale data set, respondents are grouped by their age and birth cohort to answer the following research question. In what ways has the relationship between childhood family structure and long-term educational attainment changed over time? 3 Why is this research timely and important? Demographic and census trends show that children, both white and African American, in the United States are not likely to be living in families that look like the "traditional" married mother and father "intact" model. Regardless of this empirical fact, there is an implicit and often times explicit ideology geared around strengthening and defining the family, making the assumption that there is one type of family that should be seen as better than the rest. The notion of strengthening the family does not pertain to the numerous types of family arrangements found in American society, but solely to the "traditional", "nuclear", or "intact" model. That is, "the family" is one with two biological parents and their children. This definition assumes a father breadwinner and a stay at home mother. These characterizations are problematic for a number of reasons, but mainly because, as stated earlier, most families in the United States do not look like this ideal model. There are many variations in family patterns, among them families headed by single parents, childless couples, gay and lesbian families, blended families as a result of divorce and remarriage, and families in which both parents works because of both financial neces~ity and personal desire. By idealizing one type of family, all others are marginalized and perceived as less effective and even less nurturing. This tendency towards marginalization is especially evident when the effects of families on children and childhood outcomes are discussed. 4 Discussions about the "decline of the family" often center on how families influence children, namely in the ways that family background dimensions and family structure arrangements affect children in the long run, and into their adult life. An important aspect of this discussion has to do with how children are affected, particularly in terms of their future long-term educational attainment. A number of sociological studies dealing with the effects of fatherlessness have shown negative impacts, including lower average self-esteem, school performance, and long-term achievement in education, occupation, and earnings (McLanahan 1985; Dawson 1991; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994; Amato and Booth 1997). Studies have also indicated that African American children are disproportionately more likely than children of any other ~acial group in the United States to grow up without their biological fathers in the home (Department of Health and Human Services 1998). Relating to this fact is the idea that family is thought to have an even greater impact on children from African American families as opposed to white families. While there is little empirical evidence to support this claim, it is one that is often supposed in discussions relating to race and family. Taylor states, "Although black families have received far less systemic study than white families, they are the subject of even more sweeping generalizations" (2002: 19). Therefore, the combined impact of race and family structure is important to understand when questioning how family effects relate to future educational or occupational attainment. Likewise it is important to understand the ways that race mediates and explains the relationship between the effects of family background and a child's long-term educational attainment. Central to a further understanding of discussions of the connections between race and family is a deeper and fuller understanding of The Moynihan Report. The Moynihan Report 5 In his 1965, The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, Daniel Patrick Moynihan provides a critique of African American family life. No work before or after has had such impact on issues of race and family, particularly as they relate to African American families. The Moynihan Report as it came to be known has informed nearly every story and discussion of African American families either directly or indirectly. What is most problematic where The Moynihan Report is concerned is that the scathing picture disseminated was/is assumed accurate. Potentially more troublesome though, is the possibility that those who rely on The Moynihan Report, be they researchers or policy makers, do so without fully acknowledging the complexity of his arguments and historical analysis. While the bottom line thesis of The Moynihan Report is that African Americans are caught in a "cycle of poverty" and a "tangle of pathology" rooted in the weaknesses associated with a female-headed family structure, prior to making this statement, Moynihan provides an important historical analysis for the patterns of African American families. Following the work of Gunnar Myrdal (1944), Moynihan suggests that America is at a turning point of sorts in terms of race relations. To this end, Moynihan posits that what is required is a national effort, at the level of the Federal government, to create and maintain a stable African American family structure (1965). 6 According to Moynihan, "At the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is the deterioration ofthe Negro family" (1965:5). Similarly, there is a belief that family structure is the fundamental source of weakness in the African American community. This is where most analysis of The Moynihan Report ends, and where most discussions of African American families begin. In actuality, though, his study is much more complex. That is, although his thesis remains consistent, the way in which it is reached is more nuanced than often reported. Moynihan begins his analysis by stating that the trouble facing black family structure is rooted in discrimination. In this sense, one can see how he begins to make connections between family level processes and the structural level process of racial discrimination. Moynihan notes that there is an assumption that family life is similar throughout American society (1965). His reasoning, though, is inconsistent. On the one hand, Moynihan states, "there is one truly great discontinuity in family structure in the United States ... between the white world in general and that of the Negro American" (1965:5), while on the other hand making the historical case for why African American family patterns are so varied. That is, Moynihan makes unfair comparisons between white and African American families, assuming that they should be more similar, but provides historical reasons for why this cannot be the case. The "complete breakdown" of African American families and their unstable nature that Moynihan criticizes is linked to historical events largely ones that happened out of the control of African Americans themselves. 7 American slavery, Moynihan states, ''was profoundly different from, and in its lasting effects on individuals and their children, indescribably worse than any recorded servitude, ancient or modem" (1965:15). This profound experience creates a distinctly different historical and contemporary reality for African Americans. The fact that "family life" was illegal for slaves has a huge impact of contemporary family arrangements. During slave times, African Americans were not allowed to marry, and if they did it was not recognized by the law. Children could be sold, as they were seen as property and labor, not individuals who were part of a family unit. Slavery as an institution eradicated all notions of "family" and "family life", and made it necessary for more flexible and varied definitions of family. Unquestionably, the circumstances under which slaves had to endure impacts contemporary family life to a large degree. For even during emancipation and reconstruction, African Americans were greatly marginalized. Moynihan makes the claim that one of the goals of Jim Crow laws was "keeping the Negro 'in his place"' (1965:16). Moynihan takes this a step further to interpret this as "keeping the Negro male in his place: the female was not a threat to anyone" (1965:16). These characterizations of African American men, as someone to be feared and mistrusted, placed a further strain on an already strained sense of family. Different African American family patterns emerge, including female-headed families, and kin networks as a response to continued institutional racism and discrimination. That is, African American women were already accustomed to playing a "dominant role in family and marriage relations" (1965:17), largely as a result of racist economic and social policies. 8 When compared to white families, urbanization and American society's shift away from a rural economic basis further strained African Americans in terms of"family stability", according to Moynihan (1965). "Family disorganization" and "family pathology" were the result. Moynihan characterizes family pathology in terms of "divorce, separation, and desertion, female family head, children in broken homes, and illegitimacy" (1965:19). These are all things that differ significantly in rates between white and African American families. At the time of Moynihan's study, nearly one quarter of African American families were headed by women. Moynihan links this statistic to high rates of welfare dependency, and family instability. In addition to linking welfare dependency to "broken homes", Moynihan makes a connection between it and the high rate of unemployed African American men (1965). This argument is quite similar to the central argument of William Julius Wilson in The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions (1978). According to Wilson (1978), the social structure of the inner-city is characterized by the transformation of the urban economy. In addition, Moynihan links African American unemployment to decreased and decreasing contact with whites and white society ( 1965), which is similar to the association that Wilson puts forth in his 1996 work, When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. The two connections are slightly different, though, in content, with one being cultural and the other structural. Moynihan characterizes African Americans' limited contact with whites in terms of limited access to mainstream values and role expectations. Wilson, on the other hand, considers the limited contact more in terms of the structural limitations related to the economic depravity of ghettos. Wilson then links the structural barriers to individuals and families. He states "Segregation in ghettos exacerbates employment problems because it leads to weak informal employment networks and contributes to the social isolation of individuals and families" (Wilson 1996:24). Massey and Denton 9 ( 1993) further explore this point in their claim that concentrated sites of poverty are created by an interaction between a group's overall rate of poverty and its degree of segregation in society. Racial segregation is a product of systemic racial practices such as redlining, zoning, and the creation of large-scale public housing projects in low-income areas (Massey and Denton 1993). A "culture of segregation" is thereby created, with one of the characterizations being ambivalence towards marriage, (Massey and Denton 1993 ). Moynihan associates the expansion of public assistance programs to the steady "disintegration of the Negro family structure" (1965:14). In looking at poverty and family life, Moynihan relates recession and unemployment to divorce, separation, and desertion (1965). He also notes that, "higher family incomes are unmistakably associated with greater family stability" (1965:21). Again, there are clear links to the structural factors of economics and poverty, but these are left behind in further discussions. The "tangle of pathology" discussion that Moynihan is most famous for assumes a cycle of early fertility, something he relates to female-headed families. Moynihan states, "A cycle is at work; too many children too early make it most difficult for the parents to finish school" and that "low education levels in turn produce low income levels, which deprive children of many opportunities" (1965:27). The repetition of this cycle, coupled 10 with the weakness of the family structure is central to understanding the "tangle of pathology". Moynihan suggests that the African American community has been "forced into a matriarchal structure which ... seriously retards the progress of the group as a whole" (1965:29). Black youth are therefore in danger of being caught or "entrapped" in the cycle of pathology that so greatly affects their world (1995:30). Those are very sharp and critical words, words that have a lasting effect today on discussions and assumptions about African American families. Moynihan contends that it is not necessary that a society be male dominated, as opposed to preferring a matriarchal arrangement, but states, "Ours is a society which presumes male leadership in private and public affairs" (1965:29). Although Moynihan does not believe it is necessary for a society to be male dominated, he concedes without pause that in fact that is the model in the United States. It is problematic that Moynihan fails to critique the ways in which patriarchy and a patriarchal ideology position certain family arrangements, particularly single mother families, into a place of powerlessness. Following Moynihan's position, a matriarchal arrangement puts African Americans at a distinct disadvantage because it does not follow the pattern of the mainstream. This line of reasoning, similar to the problems that arise from African Americans' limited contact with whites assumes that the values and family arrangements of white America are somehow better than others, and by not adhering to these ideals minority groups are going to be at a disadvantage. In terms of children, Moynihan draws distinct differences between whites and African Americans. Moynihan contends that white children without fathers do better than 11 African American children without fathers, who "flounder and fail" (1965:35). He does not provide empirical evidence, but rather makes the assumption that because white children "at least perceive all about them the pattern of men working"; they are at a distinct advantage (1965:35). Again this argumentation parallels the work of Wilson (1978; 1996) who suggests that the lack of employed role models is detrimental to poor youth, and Massey and Denton ( 1993) who investigate the outcomes for children who live in situations of hypersegregation. In addition, Moynihan states "The effect of broken families on the performance of Negro youth has not been extensively measured, but studies that have been made show unmistakable influence" (1965:36). Empirically, this may or may not be the case, but similar patterns may also exist for whites. Moynihan does not critique family patterns in general, but solely as he sees them effecting African American families. In the most basic terms, Moynihan draws a line from the extreme and institutionalized racism and discrimination of slavery, emancipation, reconstruction, and Jim Crow to the current economic position of African American families. He shows how family life was illegal for slaves, and how that in tum made it necessary for African American families to create family networks that were unique to their experiences. What is contradictory in this study, though, is that even with his strong historical analysis, understanding of racially institutionalized barriers, in the end Moynihan relies on cultural reasoning. The background he provides is based on structural explanations, but the discussions of the cycle of poverty and family pathologies put that aside in favor of a "blame the victim" approach. 12 Moynihan carefully explains that the illegal nature of family life during slavery made it necessary to create new family forms, but then characterizes urbanization as the downfall of African American families when even according to his analysis, the patterns, particularly female headed families, already existed as "normal". Urbanization brought with it high levels of unemployment for African Americans, especially African American men. Moynihan posits that African American women's work and wages undermines the father (1965), but this is because he clearly values a male breadwinner family structure, and finds deficient all other family arrangements. In the end, Moynihan suggests that without "assistance from the white world" the circumstances of African American families are certain to endure and worsen (1965:47). The Moynihan Report is an important document both for what it says, and what it doesn't. The broad based assumptions that are taken from the report have had great and lasting influence on how researchers, policy makers, and the general public think about African American families. On the other hand, though, Moynihan makes no attempt to provide a remedy for what he considers an extreme and dire situation. Moynihan states, "The object of this study has been to define a problem, rather than propose solutions to it" (1965:47). The Moynihan Report is a warning and a declaration about the grim situation of African Americans. Although a great portion of his analysis tackles issues of structure and institutional barriers, Moynihan's sole resolution suggests, "a national effort toward the problems of Negro Americans must be directed towards the question of family structure" (1965:47). What is most important to take from this document is that African American family patterns and arrangements differ from white family patterns and arrangements. I suggest, though, that these differences are not in and of themselves problematic, but rather a starting point for research that questions how family arrangements impact the future lives of children, and the ways that race affects this relationship. Race and Family 13 Relating the historical patterns that Moynihan outlines, the proportion of female headed household ·has always been higher for African Americans than whites (Taylor 2002). Both whites and African Americans saw a decrease in marriage between 1975 and 1998 of about 30%, but clearly, this reduction is sharpest for African Americans (Teachman, Tedrow, and Crowder 2000). The number of female-headed households has increased steadily since the mid-1990s, albeit more quickly for African American families than others (Taylor 2002). Looking at families with children under the age of 18, in 1998 57% of African American families were headed by single mothers, and 21% of white families. The increase between 1980 and 1998 for African American families was not significant, but for whites it increased from 15% (Taylor 2002). In addition to historical explanations, another is that African American women have lower remarriage rates than white women (Taylor 2002). There have always been differences between white family patterns and African American family patterns. How those differences are characterized, portrayed, and discussed, though, is incredibly important. By and large, the different patterns are characterized in terms of superior and inferior ratings, particularly as they impact 14 children. Because society has an ideology that values two-biological parent families over single parent families, particularly single mother families, there is a tendency and a norm to perceive African American single mother families as detrimental to children and even pathological as evidenced by The Moynihan Report. It is interesting that race plays such a factor here. While there is general disdain for single mother families across the board, the disdain is even more severe for African Americans. Why is it problematic that there are differences? On its own, the fact that there are different patterns should make little difference. It is all in the way the differences are constructed and ranked against each other. I suggest that the main reason is that American society views one type of family as better than the rest. Alt4ough a majority of families do not look like this model, the two-biological parent family remains the standard upon which all other family types are judged. The addition of race to this equation makes it even more complex. Instead of relying on cultural reasoning, questions should be asked relating to the institutional factors that make it difficult for African American families to look like white families, particularly the two-biological parent model. Similarly, the key to understanding African American family arrangements is subsumed within the "changing relationship of such families to the economic and social institutions of the larger society" {Taylor 2002:42). By and large, the differences between African American and white families relates directly to their differential access to the institutional and structural pathways of economic success in American society. The diversity in family forms, as well as function, contradicts the popular conception of "the American family" as a monolithic and universal entity. Instead, '"the family' is experienced differently by people in different social classes, by of people of different racial and ethnic background, and even by gender. And variations in families occur within a social class or ethnic group" (Baca Zinn and Eitzen 1993 :xii). Race is a major determinant in the variations of how family life is experi~nced. 15 A question of central importance for both family theory and social policy is whether the negative consequences of fatherlessness are more, less, or equally severe for African American children than for white children. Similarly, it is important to understand the ways in which these patterns and consequences have changed over time, through different socio-historical periods. Missing from each of these theories is a substantial understand~ng of socio historical changes in both family life and United States racial policy. The utilization of a socio-historical perspective allows for an exploration between macro-level and micro level processes. Conceptual Model and Research Assumptions My research project advances the knowledge of changing family forms by focusing on the diversity of families. I examine and track the effects, both cross sectionally and historically over time, of childhood family structure on the long-term educational attainment patterns of African Americans and whites using pooled data from several nationally representative samples spanning the past 40 years [ 1962 Occupational Changes in a Generation I (OCGI), 1973 Occupational Changes in a Generation II (OCGII), 1986-88 Surveys of Income and Program Participation (SIPPs), 1992-94 National Survey of Families and Households 2 (NSFH2), and 1972-98 General Social Surveys (GSS)]. The conceptual model is a causal model that utilizes quantitative data. Conceptual Model Childhood Family Structure ! Race Figure 1.1, Conceptual Model I Birth Cohort t-1 ----.,. l l ... Long-Term Educational Attainment t The conceptual model above, Figure 1.1, illustrates the guiding research 16 questions, variable relationships, and assumptions of my research. As seen in the model, the primary relationship that is tested involves the ways that childhood family structure affects future long-term educational attainment. There are also a number of other associations and relationships of interest that involve the mediating variables of race (white and African American), gender (men and women), and birth cohort (respondents' year of birth). The first set of research inquiries relates to the ways in which race and gender affect, mediate, or alter the relationship between childhood family structure and long-term educational attainment. In addition, I am interested in the degree to which the variations in long-term educational attainment by childhood family structure differ 17 between African Americans and whites. Studies have previously shown a decrease in long-term educational attainment for children from single parent homes, and likewise theorized that this pattern is more severe for African Americans, particularly African American boys. As of yet fully explored and untested, I perform t-tests between whites and African Americans from similar family arrangements to test this assumption. That is, are the decreases in education for children, especially boys, from single parent families, or other non two-biological parent families significantly different (higher) for African Americans? The subsequent layer of research involves the variable of time, accessed through each respondents' year of birth. After providing a broad and generaliz~d portrait of the affects of childhood family structure, race, and gender on long-term educational attainment, I look at how birth cohort affects the relationship. In this section, I re-test the childhood family structure, race, and gender outcomes for each birth decade beginning in the 1910's and ending in the 1960's. Are the patterns and findings consistent or have they changed over time? In what ways have they changed, and expressly for which groups? Rationale and Plausibility of the Model I constructed a data set with data pooled from the 1962 Occupational Changes in a Generation I (OCGI), 1973 Occupational Changes in a Generation II (OCGII), 1986-88 Surveys of Income and Program Participation (SIPPs), 1992-94 National Survey of Families and Households 2 (NSFH2), and 1972-98 General Social Surveys (GSS). All pooled, I produce a data set with 90,611 respondents representing birth cohorts 1898 through 1973. Of the total sample, 81,712 are white (53,137 men and 28,575 women), 18 and 8899 are African American (5100 men and 3799 women). All of the data sets are large and nationally representative. I analyzed the data through a variety of ordinary least squares regressions, t-tests, and logistic regressions. The specific characteristics, measures, and constructs are discussed fully in Chapter 2. The conceptual model is utilized as a means of specifying and illustrating the relationships between the primary and mediating variables. It is a way to more fully understand the interrelationships among and between the dependent and independent variables. In addition, the model is plausible because the research questions of interest can be tested rigorously and empirically with a data set that is of high quality both internally and externally. Research Organization The body of my research includes two empirical chapters. The two empirical chapters are related by their coverage of issues of family and race, but each answer a different set of research questions. The second empirical chapter builds upon the first, but can also be read and understood separately. With this in mind, the major theoretical underpinnings and relevant literature are subsumed within the necessary chapter, as opposed to a separate chapter that deals solely with theory and background. There are two main reasons for setting up my research in this manner. First, the nature of the research questions and the methods I use lend themselves more to an article format. While the two empirical chapters are related to one another in terms of content, they really do center on different sets of research questions and theory. Second, the transition from manuscript to articles ready to submit for publication will be easier and more streamlined. Following is a brief chapter-by-chapter overview of each of the following chapters in my research. Chapter-by-Chapter Overview 19 Chapter 2 describes the study design of my research. This section provides details about the specific characteristics of the pooled dataset, as well as the variables, methods and constructs used in my analyses. Complete questionnaire wording is included as necessary. Chapter 3 is the first empirical chapter, and it centers around two primary research questions: In what ways does childhood family structure effect the long-term educational attainment of African Americans and whites? Are the effects of childhood family structure similar or different when comparing between the two racial groups? The primary hypothesis for Chapter 3 is Childhood Family Structure is More Consequential for the Educational Achievement of African American Children, Particularly Boys, than White Children. Using hypothesis testing, I examine if childhood family structure is more, less, or equally consequential for African Americans and whites. Subsumed within each hypothesis is a review of the relevant literature and theory. Following the review of literature are the findings that the cross-sectional effects of family structure on long-term educational attainment are similar when comparing between the two racial groups. This cross-sectional research provides the necessary starting point for the next chapter that examines the ways (if any) that these patterns have changed over time. Chapter 4, the second empirical chapter, focuses on the following research question: In what ways has the relationship between childhood family structure and 20 long-term educational attainment changed over time? The primary hypotheses for Chapter 4 are Over time, the effects of childhood family structure on long-term educational attainment will decline and Over time, the effects of childhood family structure on long-term educational attainment will decline more for African Americans than whites. Current literature dealing with a time variable is inconsistent, some suggesting stability, some change, and others a mixture of the two. None of the current literature involves a socio-historical perspective, and I suggest that it is an important addition to further understanding the relationship between childhood family structure and long-term educational attainment. The question then transforms from "Are family background effects decreasing or increasing over time?'' to "What exp,lains the change in family background effects with respect to educational attainment?" In Chapter 5, I discuss the overall findings of my research, and the positioning and significance of my research within the overall historiography of family and race research. Of particular interest are discussions about the ways in which macro level socio-historical events interact with micro level family processes and patterns. The conclusion poses directions for future research. 21 Chapter 2 - Study Design As discussed in the previous chapter, the following research questions guide the empirical chapters of my study. Is childhood family structure more, less, or equally consequential for the educational achievement of African American children relative to that of white children? Are the effects of childhood family structure similar or different when comparing between the two racial groups? In what ways has the relationship between childhood family structure and long-term educational attainment changed over time? In this chapter, I describe the specific characteristics of the pooled data set used in my research [1962 Occupational Changes in a Generation I (OCGI), 1973 Occupational Changes in a Generation II (OCGII), 1986-88 Surveys of Income and Program Participation (SIPPs), 1992-94 National Survey of Families and Households 2 (NSFH2), and 1972-98 General Social Surveys (GSS)], as well as the methods and constructs that are used in the following analyses. The independent variables consist of family and personal background dimensions, including childhood family structure, socioeconomic status, race, birth cohort, and gender. The central dependent variable is long-term educational attainment, calculated both as a total number of years, and as a series of conditional transitions, following Mare (1980; 1981; 1995), beginning with the completion (or not) of ninth grade, and ending with graduation from college (four-year degree or higher). 22 Data Data are compiled from the 1962 OCGI survey, the 1973 OCGII, the pooled 1986-88 SIPPs, the 1992-94 second wave of the NSFH2 matched to information contained in the first wave (1987-88), and the 1972-1998 pooled GSS. The OCGI and OCGII surveys were mail supplements to the March 1962 and March 1973 Current Population Surveys, respectively. They represent the civilian noninstitutional male population aged 20-64 in those years (Blau and Duncan 1967; Featherman and Hauser 1978). The OCGI and OCGII data were collected to study the effect of men's social and family backgrounds on their careers. Variables include respondents' age, employment history, military service (1973 only), marital history, ethnicity, income, education, and (in .. 1962 only) number of children. Also included is information about the educational attainment and occupation of the head of the household in which the respondent lived with at age 16, type of family respondent lived in at age 16, mother's (1973 only) and father's educational attainment, number of siblings, and educational attainment of the respondent's oldest and (in 1973 only) youngest brother. Similar data on education, current occupation, and income are available for wives of respondents, but social background data for wives are limited to father's occupation, father's education, number of siblings, and mother's education (1973 only) (Blau, Duncan, Featherman, and Hauser [producer], 1983; Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1994). The SIPPs are large longitudinal (9 waves of interviews over 36 months) household surveys administered by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, representing U.S. 23 household members (both male and female) ages 15 to 64. The second waves of the 1986-88 SIPPs panels include a family background topical module that contains most of the variables needed for the present analysis. These data contain basic demographic, social, and economic information for each member of interviewed households. Variables include age, sex, race, ethnic origin, marital status, household relationships, level and type of education, and veteran status. Core questions, repeated at each interview, include monthly labor force activity, types and amounts of monthly income, and participation in various cash and noncash benefits programs for each month of the survey period. Data for employed persons include number of hours and weeks worked, earnings, and weeks without a job . .. Nonworkers are classified as unemployed or not in the labor force. In addition to income data associated with labor force activity, nearly 50 other types of income data are provided. The SIPPs surveys used a multistage stratified sampling design. In the 1986 Panel, approximately 16,300 households were selected for the sample. For Wave 1 of the 1986 Panel, interviews were obtained from the occupants of about 11 ,500 of the designated living units. In the 1987 Panel, roughly 33,100 persons were initially designated in the sample. For Wave 1 of the 1987 Panel, interviews were obtained from approximately 30,700 occupants of about 11,700 of the designated living units. In the 1988 Panel, roughly 33,700 persons were initially designated in the sample. For Wave 1 ofthe 1988 Panel, interviews were obtained from approximately 31,000 occupants of about 11,700 of the designated living units. 24 For later interviews, only original sample persons from Wave 1 and persons living with them were eligible to be interviewed. Sample households within the panels were divided into four subsamples of nearly equal size, called rotation groups, and each rotation group was re-interviewed at four-month intervals (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Washington DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census [producer], 1990a; 1990b; 1992); Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1990; 1991; 1993). The NSFH includes interviews with 13,008 respondents ages 19 and older who comprise a representative sample of the adult U.S. household population. The NSFH2 follows up with 10,008 of the original respondents, re-interviewing them five years later. } For the purposes of this pooled data set, I use the family background characteristics that respondents reported at time one to predict their time two outcomes. In the original NSFH, the national sample of 13,008 includes a main cross-section of9,637 households plus an oversampling of African Americans, Puerto Ricans, Mexican Americans, single-parent families, families with step-children, cohabiting couples and recently married persons. One adult per household was randomly selected as the primary respondent. Several portions of the main interview were self-administered to facilitate the collection of sensitive information as well as to ease the flow of the interview. In addition, a shorter self-administered questionnaire was given to the spouse or cohabiting partner of the primary respondent. A considerable amount of life-history information was collected, including the respondent's family. living arrangements during childhood, departures and returns to the 25 parental home, and histories of marriage, cohabitation, education, fertility, and employment. This type of design produces a detailed description of past and current living arrangements and other characteristics and experiences, as well as the analysis of the consequences of earlier patterns on current states, marital and parenting relationships, kin contact, and economic and psychological well-being. The substantive coverage of the NSFH and NSFH2 has been kept broad to allow for the extensive analysis of family experiences from an array of theoretical perspectives (Sweet, Bumpass, and Call 1988; Sweet and Bumpass 1996). The General Social Surveys (GSS) are designed as part of a program of social indicator research, replicating questionnaire items and wording in order to facilitate time- • trend studies. This collection is a cumulative data set that merges all data collected as part of the General Social Surveys from 1972 through 1998 (Davis, Smith, Marsden [producer], 2003; Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributors], 2003). Each year's GSS survey (face to face questionnaire administration) is a nationally representative sample of adults ages 18 and over living in the continental United States (Davis and Smith 1996; http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS99). The National Data Program for the Social Sciences (General Social Survey) is both a data diffusion project and a program of social indicator research. Previously an annual survey, the GSS became biennial in 1994. The questionnaire contains a standard core of demographic and attitudinal variables, plus certain topics of special interest selected for rotation (called 26 ''topical modules"). Items that appeared on national surveys between 1973 and 1975 are replicated. The exact wording of these questions is retained to facilitate time trend studies as well as replications of earlier findings. NORC also incorporates methodological experiments into each year of the GSS data collection. These have involved question wording, context effects, use of different types of response scales, as well as random probes and other assessments of validity and reliability. In each data set, following Duncan and Duncan ( 1969), I select United States born respondents ages 25 to 64 to insure uniformity and consistency across the combined data sets. All pooled, I produce a data set with 90,611 respondents representing birth cohorts 1898 through 1973. Ofthe total sample, 81,712 are white (53,137 men and 28,575 women), and 8899 are African American (5100 men and 3799 women). Methods and Constructs Of utmost and primary concern in utilizing this pooled data set is in creating constructs that allow for uniformity and consistency across each of the five data sets. There are slight variations in some of the questionnaire wordings in the five data sets. With this in mind, I take extra care in determining variable comparability and compatibility. In instances where I could not establish complete comparability, I either eliminated the variable entirely, or adjusted the variables in the other data sets to produce similarity. In the following discussion of the major constructs, these instances will be explained more fully. 27 Childhood Family Structure Each of the five surveys asks the respondent about his or her childhood family arrangement in ways that are easily compared and combined. Specifically, the OCGI and OCGII ask respondents who they lived with most of the time up to age 16. The SIPPs surveys ask respondents who they lived with at age 16. In the NSFH2, respondents provided their family type at age 16. Similarly, the GSS surveys ask respondents if they were living with both their own mother and father around the time they were 16. As a follow up in the GSS, for those who answer no, respondents are then asked with whom they were living at that time. Based on each of the respondents' answers to these family stru~ture questions, I construct the main independent variable, type of family respondent grew up in, in a way that is comparable across the five surveys: (1) two-biological parent family; (2) single mother family; (3) single father and father-stepmother family 1 ; and (4) stepfather-mother family. There are a number of other family types that are not used in these analyses because they are either too small for accurate estimations, or because they are not consistent across the data sets. Respondents who do not easily fit into one of these four childhood family types are eliminated from further analyses. The four primary family types that I have chosen to include demonstrate the major effects of the dimension of family background (Wojtkiewicz 1993; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994; Powell and Parcel 1997). 1 Single father and father/stepmother families are combined in order to maintain consistency across the data sets. The OCG survey did not allow for "father/stepmother families", and these were coded the same as single father headed families. Given the need for comparability and consistency across the five data sets, I constructed this family type as a combination. 28 Distance From Mother In addition to the main childhood family structure dummy variables, following Biblarz, Raftery, and Bucur (1997), I utilize a "distance from mother" scale, to address the discussion of a mother's importance in intergenerational transmission, as it relates to education. Biblarz, Raftery, and Bucur (1997) found that both white and African American men from mother headed families had similar socioeconomic attainment as those from two-biological parent headed families. In addition, they found that for all other family structure types (father-headed and stepfamily) there was a negative association between family type and future socioeconomic attainment (Biblarz et al. 1997). The role of mothers is important when looking at the process of intergenerational transmission of social mobility and socioeconomic attainment as well as that of long-term educational attainment. This pattern is true for transmission from fathers to sons, as well as for mothers to sons. Biblarz, Raftery, and Bucur (1997) suggest that mothers are important to the intergenerational transmission process, and that "the farther alternative family structures take children away from mothers, the more the intergenerational transmission breaks down" (1333). When a mother is present, as with two-biological parent families, intergenerational transmission is high (Biblarz et al. 1997). Additionally, in the absence of one's mother, even when a biological father is the present, as with a father-stepmother family structure or single father family structure, children are less likely to benefit from the process of intergenerational transmission (Biblarz et al. 1997). I contend that this model, and the utilization of a distance from mother scale is also useful in work that connects childhood family structure type to long-term educational attainment, as education and socioeconomic mobility are deeply tied. 29 Operationalzing and constructing the "distance from mother" scale follows the work ofBiblarz, Raftery, and Bucur (1997), and is based on respondents' assignment within the four childhood family structure dummy variables. Those who reported living in a two-biological parent family are coded as 0. This group serves as the referent, and comparison model for the other alternative family structures. Respondents from single mother families are coded as 1, following Biblarz, Raftery, and Bucur's (1997) coding and suggestion that intergenerational transmission is strongest when ~e mother is present. Finally, those respondents from single father and father/stepmother families 2 , and mother/stepfather families are coded as 2. Again, this coding follows Biblarz, Raftery, and Bucur (1997) and their contention that in addition to the important role of mothers with regard to intergenerational transmission, there is subsumed within the "distance from mother" literature an assumption that deals with biological versus nonbiological family heads. This model predicts that a "stepfamily structure will negatively affect children's attainment because when offspring are biological, parents devote more time, money, and attention to them than when they are stepchildren" (Biblarz et al1997:1322). Regression models in each of the empirical chapters will be estimated both with the four childhood family structure types, and in terms of their "distance from mother". 2 Please refer to the footnote on page 28 for an explanation of this category combination. 30 While the focus of this research is in relation to childhood family structure, it is important to include the "distance from mother" scale for the extra insight and nuanced understanding it provides to the research questions. As will be seen in later chapters, for many of the regression models, those that include the "distance from mother" scale provide the best fit for the data. Birth Cohort Respondents' birth cohort is constructed by their linear birth year (1898-1973), and is used in this way in the regression models in the first empirical chapter, Chapter 3. These birth years are based on respondents' answers to questions about their birthday in each survey. In each of the five data sets, questions about age and birthday are asked in such a way as to allow for direct comparability within the pooled data set. In addition, given the historical nature of this analysis, and the need to test questions regarding "changes over time", I also construct a series of birth cohort dummies that represent the generational decades from the 1910's through the 1960's. There is a great deal of consensus among sociologists that one's birth cohort or generation is important when studying socio-historical trends (Schnittker, Freese, and Powell2003). It has been recognized since Mannheim ([1928] 1952) that the socio historical events that are shared by birth cohorts have a tendency to shape and influence one's life (Schnittker et al. 2003 ), as well as produce similar experiences for those born around the same time. A birth cohort is generally defined as a group of individuals born at roughly the same time. The term generation suggests that the socio-historical experiences of 31 individual birth cohorts are able to distinguish them from cohorts born before and after (Erickson and Tedin 1995; Schnittker et al. 2003). I suggest that the socio-historical factors that affect those from specific birth decades from the 1910's through the 1960's can therefore be treated as generational differences for the sake of these analyses. That is not to say that each of these decades is uniquely distinguished from the others based on a single unifying socio-historical event, but that the general socio-historical climate of each decade creates similar experiences for those born within the decade. Certainly there are major socio-historical events that "characterize" a generation, such as The Great Depression, World War I, (Bengtson, Biblarz, and Roberts 2002), and the Civil Rights Movement, but even without these ubiquitous events birth cohorts share similar l>. experiences. Following this body of knowledge, the linear birth years (1898-1973) are collapsed into decades in Chapter 4 to test changes over time with regard to childhood family structure and long-term education attainment. It should be noted that the birth cohort dummy for those born in the 1910's also includes respondents born in 1898 and 1899. Similarly, the birth cohort dummy for the 1960's includes respondents born 1970-1973. The populations that would have created birth cohort dummies for the 1890's and the 1970's were very small, and statistically insignificant when analyzed individually. Other Independent Variables The other independent variables that I include in this research are race (African American= 1 ), gender of respondent (female= 1 ), and the employment and occupational status of the family head respondents lived with during childhood. My research only 32 includes those who are clearly identified in the data sets as being white or African American. The reason is both practical and theoretical. First, the five data sets that are pooled do not have comparable categories for race, except in the cases of whites and African Americans. Two of the data sets, the OCGI and OCGII, only classify respondents as white, African American, or "other". In this case, it is impossible to determine who within the OCGI and OCGII's "other" category are Asian, Latino, or Native American. As consistency is a major factor, other racial categories have been eliminated from analyses for this practical reason. Likewise, the research questions that guide my study deal most centrally with issues of race in America, as they relate to whites and African Americans. Of central importance are the historical underpinnings and current discourses ~ relating to The Moynihan Report. Following Biblarz and Raftery (1999), occupational status is measured as Duncan's ( 1961) socioeconomic index (SEI) for the OCGI and OCGII surveys and, for SIPPs and NSFH, Hauser and Warren's (1997) update of Duncan's SEI is used. Educational Attainment The dependent variable used throughout the empirical chapters is long-term educational attainment, measured both as the total number of years of education achieved (using least squares regression), and as a series of conditional transitions (using logistic regression models). Following Mare (1980; 1981; 1995), long-term educational attainment is treated as a series of conditional transitions, beginning with the completion (or not) of ninth grade, and ending with graduation from college (four-year degree or higher). Still following Mare (1980; 1981; 1995), in the regression models that estimate 33 education as a series of conditional transitions, analysis of ninth grade completion includes the full sample; analysis of high school completion includes only those who had completed ninth grade; analysis of entry into college includes only those who had completed high school; and analysis of college completion includes only those who had begun or attended college. As needed in the following empirical chapters, further discussion of the methods and constructs is provided. 34 Chapter 3 - More, Less, or the Same: Does Race Matter? A question of central importance for both family theory and social policy is whether the negative consequences of family structure are more severe for African American children than for white children. In addition, one of the main purposes of this chapter is to bring social scientific and empirical realism and evidence to the political and most provocative contemporary discourses and discussions. Contemporary media and popular discourse portrays young black males in a predatory manner. On television and in print, they are constructed primarily as gang members, high-school dropouts, and drug dealers with exceedingly high incarceration rates. These trends, it is often assumed, are a result of living without fathers or male role models that are able provide discipline and structure. Debates surrounding this type of political and popular discourse inform the central research questions for this chapter: Is childhood family structure more, less, or equally consequential for the educational achievement of African American children relative to that of white children? I focus on education because it is the strongest marker of future economic success. Some theory suggests that fatherlessness should be less consequential for African American children, asserting that alternative family forms and extended kin networks are "normative." Other theory predicts that fatherlessness would be more harmful, particularly for African American boys who need the discipline and structure that a father is able to provide. Still other theory predicts that the consequences of family structure for children's educational achievement should be approximately the same across racial groups. 35 These competing claims have not been adequately tested or resolved because of flaws and/or inconsistencies in data, methods, and measurement across studies. It is important to know which claim the evidence most strongly supports, both for policy, and for advancing knowledge about which theories of the family best fit the data. This chapter will begin with a discussion of the discourses, perspectives, and relevant literature that inform my questions about race, gender, family structure, and future markers of success, namely the contemporary "family values" and "decline of the family" debate; the notion of"fatherlessness"; and issues relating to race and family. Following, I will discuss each of the hypotheses (less, more, or the same?) along with the supporting literature. Finally, I will test the hypotheses with a series of ordinary least "" squares and logistic regressions. The Family Values and Family Decline Debate Is the family in a state of decline as Popenoe (1993) states? Or is the postmodem family condition one that goes beyond simple biological or legal ties (Stacey 1996)? On one side of the debate is the idea that families are contracting in function and importance. Popenoe (1993; 1996) and others lament the decreasing number of"intact" families, and attribute much of society's ills to a weakening nuclear family structure. On the other side of the debate is the argument that the idea that there is something specific we can call a family or the family is misleading, ultimately hiding the fact that families are as diverse as the people that comprise them (Stacey 1996). By this reasoning, to suggest an ideal family type that should be emulated and/or romanticized serves no other purpose than isolating the many families that do not match up to its standard. Trends in divorce, delay 36 of marriage, and even a retreat from marriage {Teachman, et al. 2000), have prompted spirited debates among family scholars. What is the nature of this debate? One way to characterize debates surrounding family is by using a dichotomous conservative and liberal approach. This does well in capturing the major differences and key players, yet it lacks the ability for distinction or nuances. In using the conservative- liberal model, conservatives are characterized as wanting to maintain (or return to) and strengthen exiting social arrangements, while liberals see change and diversity as signs of progress (Glenn 2000). Glenn suggests that adding a third category, centrist or neoliberal, serves to more aptly characterize contemporary family debates. In contemporary family debates, conservatives often rely on arguments that are religious by nature, using morality !!.., and ethics as a backdrop for their positions. According to this perspective, family change is detrimental to men, women and especially children, and the only way to counter the social problems associated with family instability is by reinstitutionalizing the family, strengthening marriage, and "reestablishing family values" (Glenn 2000:6). Liberals, on the other hand, "decry any attempts to reverse family change, not only because they think the attempts are futile but because they believe the attempts may have undesirable consequences" (Glenn 2000:7). Following this perspective, family change is not only a sign of progress, but as well a consequence of broader structural changes with regard to increased prosperity and greater equality between men and women. Contemporary family change is a time of transition into the postmodem society. Centrists and neoliberals side with conservatives in 37 believing that recent family change, particularly the rise in single parent families has detrimental effects (Glenn 2000). The Family IS in a State of Decline In his book, Disturbing the Nest: Family Decline and Change in Modern Societies (1988), Popenoe posits that the rapidly changing nature of families is evidence of family decline. Counter to his position, Popenoe suggests that those who oppose the idea of family decline are likely to consider it a "myth" (1988) or a fabrication. On the one hand, Popenoe considers himself a "value-free" sociologist who is not making judgments about family decline, merely stating the facts "to provide an objective analysis of family change"; but then on the other hand, he very clearly states, "family decline, in my view, is not only real, but also has an impact, especially on children and thereby on future generations, that should be of concern to the citizens of every modem nation" (1988:10). Popenoe defines family decline in terms of modernity and "deinstitutionalization", and documents five ways by which to characterize the weakening nature of the family in modem society (1988). 1. Family groups are becoming internally deinstitutionalized, that is, their individual members are more autonomous and less bound by the group and the domestic group as a whole is less cohesive. In a highly institutionalized group or organizations there is a strong coordination of internal relationships and the directing of group activities toward collective goals. Families, I shall argue, are becoming less institutionalized in this sense. Examples of this are the decline of economic interdependence between husband and wife and the weakening of parental authority over children. 2. The family is weakening in carrying out many of its traditional social functions. With a birthrate that is below the replacement level, this is demonstrably true for the function of procreation. It seems true as well, given the amount of premarital and extramarital sexuality, for the control of sexual behavior. I shall maintain, in addition, that the family is weakening in its functions of socializing children and providing care for its members. 3. The family as an institution is losing power to other institutional groups in society. Examples of this are the decline of nepotism in political and economic life, the rise of mandatory schooling, and conflicts between the family and the state, in which the state increasingly wins. 4. The family is weakening in the sense that individual family groups are decreasing in size and becoming more unstable, with a shorter life span, and people are members of such groups for a smaller percentage of their life course. 5. Finally, family decline is occurring in the sense that familism as a cultural value is weakening in favor of such values as self-fulfillment and egalitarianism. (Pages 8-9) According to these characteristics, family decline is largely a result of industrialization and the lessening need for the family to rely on each other for basic 38 needs as other social institutions begin to take over. Popenoe defines the family as a unit with at least one adult that is responsible for the care of at least one child. Although he uses the former as a definition of the family, Popenoe states, "The prototype family most commonly used today is a married couple who live together with their children" (1988:5). Throughout his analysis, there are contradictions between purportedly judgment free research and judgment full commentary and opinion. In his analysis, Popenoe illustrates the ways in which sociology has historically dealt with the concept of family decl~ne starting with nineteenth-century sociological views. Given the general conservative overtones of early sociology, and their concern for maintaining social order, it is easy to understand that a primary facet was the 39 "reestablishment or maintenance of a strong family" (1988:12). Popenoe focuses on the work of August Comte (1798-1857), the "reputed father of sociology" who regarded the family, not the individual as the basic social unit of society (1988:12). Comte was concerned with family decline and the rising egalitarianism of the time, and advocated for the restoration of patriarchy (Popenoe 1988). Following the work of Comte and other French sociologists, Popenoe next discusses the rise of evolutionary theory. Herbert Spencer's (1820-1903) contribution to family theory is evidenced in his development of structural-functionalism, and with it the notion that society and social life evolves from the simple to the complex in terms of form and function (Popenoe 1998). Central to Spencer's theory was the evolution of the ~ family "away from ascribed social duties and toward voluntary contractual relationships" (Popenoe 1988: 15). Popenoe finds Spencer's theory inconsistent, believing that instead of getting more complex, families are actually simplifying. Again Popenoe is providing a judgment within his "judgment free" analysis. Popenoe states with some disdain that Spencer ''tended to be fairly liberal on contemporary family issues ... believing ... in the right of divorce and taking a positive view ... that marriage would eventually be bonded by affection and sentiment rather than the imposition of legal and social sanctions" (1988:16). The move from simple to complex can possibly be seen as accounting for the wide variety of contemporary family arrangements and functions. Perhaps it could be argued that greater complexity and greater diversity are signs of family progress, not family decline. 40 Rounding out his analysis of nineteenth-century social theory, Popenoe turns to Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895). Whereas evolutionists saw family in a progressive way, Marx and Engels viewed it as regressive. The "monogamous, bourgeois family form was ... essentially an economic unite based on the 'private gain' of capitalism" (Popenoe 1988: 16). The family by this definition was a contract about property and economics. According to Marx and Engels, the shift to industrialization and capitalism, and the consequent changes in family caused "massive exploitation of women and children, leading to economic misery and child and family neglect: (Popenoe 1988: 16). I think it is interesting that the "monogamous, bourgeois family" that Marx and Engels decry coincides with the contemporary ideal family type of ~ the married couple and their children. That is, one side of the "family values" and "decline of the family" debate seeks to encourage, strengthen, and value to the exclusion of all other families, a family form that is considered to be detrimental to women and children. Moving on to twentieth-century social and family theory, Popenoe points to two books, the History of Human Marriage (1984-1901) by Edward A. Westermarck, and A History of Matrimonial Institutions (1904) by G.E. Howard that claim the historical, universal, and consistent nature of monogamous and patriarchal family patterns (1988). Many contemporary anthropologists greatly disagree with this claim, though, pointing to wide historical variations in family pattern, matrilineal forms, and greater sexual freedom. The claims made by Westermarck and Howard, though, make their way into family theory, as well as contemporary political discussions. 41 Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) followed the general intellectual school ofComte and Spencer, posing the various stages of family development, "but rejected the ideas of family origins in promiscuity and matriarchy", setting him firmly among the other thinkers ofhis time (Popenoe 1988:18). Durkheim saw the family as two separate, but connected relationships, one the conjugal tie between husband and wife, and the second the nuclear between parents and children (Popenoe 1988: 19). Durkheim surmised that over time the tie between husband and wife would grow stronger and more intimate, while the tie between parents and children would lessen, with those functions being replaced by other social institutions. In addition, in his famous work on suicide, Durkheim linked rising suicide rates with family decline noting that this was particularly "' because the family in modem society was a small and relatively isolated institution (Popenoe 1988:20). The development of family theory and family sociology in the United States also began in the late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century. In Popenoe's view, early American family sociologists took a "rather liberal position on family change ... and had a common faith in the adaptability of the family as an institution to new social conditions" (1988:22). As sociology became more established as an academic discipline, it changed from based in social work and social reform to a "scientific" discipline. Similarly, there was a turning away from studying family change to a more comparative study of family organization and disorganization (Popenoe 1988). Anthropology saw a similar change from evolution to functionalism (Popenoe 1988). 42 The new focus on family organization resulted from the emerging perspective of social psychology. Central to this movement was Ernest W. Burgess (1886-1966) who broke completely with the European and evolutionary perspectives, believing the "family was essentially a process ... which changed over time, and whose essential nature was both created and influenced by the individuals within it" (Popenoe 1988:23). Contrasting Burgess's theory of change and adaptation, other American sociologists relied on a Durkheimian approach to prove family decline. Still others struck a more centrist perspective, not illustrating the family in terms of decline or progress, but as losing some function to other social institutions but all the while maintaining a relatively neutral state (Popenoe 1988). It is clear even at this early point in American sociol~gy that the "family values" and "decline of the family" debate was brewing. Talcott Parsons (1902-1979), in keeping with the structural-functionalism of the day, viewed family as a "specialized or differentiated unit performing an important function in society, one that contributes to the society's ability to operate smoothly" (Popenoe 1988:25). Further, Parsons posited that the family was losing functions, and becoming isolated from other social institutions. These changes, according to Parsons, left the family more able to perform the remaining functions, namely affection, companionship, and the socialization of children. Parsons view of the family, though, did not allow for variations of family form. His concept of a functioning family was "patriarchal, nuclear, with the traditional division between the roles of men and women" (Popenoe 1988:26). Popenoe asserts that this view of the family has made Parsons a ''whipping boy of the sociological left" (1988:26). 43 Popenoe characterizes popular family discourse in the 1960s through 1980s as two warring camps that differently interpreted trends in family life and organization. One the one side was the religiously based right-wing "moral majority" who see family decline as the "equivalent of moral decay and ... seriously weakening the very fiber of the nation" (Popenoe 1988:31). On the other side were left-wing groups, particularly radical feminists who regarded family decline as a "positive human achievement because it meant the decline of patriarchal tyranny and the continued liberation of the individual" (Popenoe 1988:31). Upon defining the historical tenets of family sociology, Popenoe provides his own analysis. Again his bias is clear in the tone of his writing, although he contends he is ~ providing a value-free investigation. Some sociologists, Popenoe contends, believe there is no such thing as the family, but rather many types of family (1988). Popenoe disagrees with this contention and notes that sociologists who believe it utilize the strategy of myth and mythologizing (1988). Therefore, for contemporary family sociologists, the debate is more than just about defining family decline as something progressive or regressive, but rather in even characterizing families in terms of decline. Instead of family decline, the "demythologizes", as Popenoe (1988) calls them, see the disparate trends and variations in family patterns in terms of change. Popenoe poses the question, "If the sociological view that family decline is a myth flies in the face of the rapidity of family change ... to what other factors might this sociological perspective be attributed?" (1988:35). Quite assuredly, Popenoe posits that this question can be answered with shifting ideologies, noting that it is "no secret ... that most sociologists today are politically left-wing on most social questions" (1988:35). In his final summary, Popenoe offers that the "new demythologizers, in my judgment, have not only overthrown a good deal of traditional sociology, but have clouded our understanding of an important social trend ... the institution of the family in advanced societies seems manifestly to be continuing what I think must be regarded as a long-term historical decline" (1988:36). In his subsequent book, Life Without Father (1996), Popenoe furthers his argument about family decline, focusing specifically on fatherhood, marriage, and children. Sharply contrasting the position ofPopenoe and other family decline theorists are those that he refers to as "demythologizers". "Families" Are Diverse and Adaptable 44 In contrast to Popenoe and others who support the family decline theory are those that see families as adaptable and diverse social institutions that change over time with regard to necessity, culture, and arrangement. Instead of characterizing the growing diversity of family arrangements in terms of a decline in family efficacy or strength, "family change" theorists see current trends as a positive result of broader social changes. That is trends towards greater prosperity and gender equality have brought about changes in family patterns (Glenn 2000). In addition, family change theorists posit that the large economic and demographic shifts that have created postmodem family conditions cannot be (and should not be) reversed (Glenn 2000). Similarly, changing family functions and gender roles should be seen as positive changes, as opposed to that is detrimental ones (Benokraitis 2000). According to this characterization, therefore, the changes in "family values" are a consequence, rather than the cause of structural family change. 45 Stacey ( 1996) argues that it is misleading to think there is something specific we can call a family or the family. She contends that families are as diverse as the people that make them up. Accordingly, to suggest an ideal family type that should be emulated and/or romanticized serves no other purpose than isolating the many families that do not match up to its standard. Instead of bemoaning the decline of the family, Stacey suggests that we "come to grips with the postmodem family condition ... and begin to promote better living and spiritual conditions for the diverse array of real families we actually inhabit and desire" (1996:11). Stacey sums up her argument by stating that what is most important for families is the "character and quality of relationships, of parenthood, and of the conditions in which these occur, whether parents decide to marry or divorce" ~- (1998:69). Stacey (1998) emphasizes that parenting and family are about the quality of a relationship with a child, not about the marital status of the parents. While those who support the family decline theory suggest a universal conception of the family, those who oppose it do not. One of the strategies to debunk the family decline position is to examine historical trends and patterns. Historically, as in the present, there was no single or uniform model of family. There has never been a universally practiced "traditional" family form (Bruce, et al 1995). Attempts to define or redefine the family are difficult because '"the family' was never a simple, functional concept in the first place" (Midgley and Hughes 1997:60). This is contrary to the media's portrayal of an enduring and ideal family, with a stay-at-home mother, a bread-winning father, and dependent children (McLanahan and Casper 1998). Gillis, illustrating this point, states, "families past are presented to us not only as more stable but as more 46 authentic than families present" (1996:3). Further, he contends that the past is idealized by collective memory as "days when fathers were really fathers, mothers true mothers, and children still children" (Gillis 1996:3). Through an historical lens, Gillis illustrates the ways families have been socially created (1996). He points to different historical periods, showing the diversity of family forms, dispelling the myth of the enduring and unchanging traditional family. In the past the term family was more equivalent to a contemporary notion of household, being those individuals who live within a common physical space. Family was not a term that automatically denoted love, connection, or sentimentality. Instead, it was a site of work and economics. Likewise, mothering has not always been thought of as it is in ~ contemporary society. The sentimentality that surrounds mothering an.d motherhood is a fairly new phenomenon, rooted in modernism and Western industrial society. Fatherlessness The discourse of fatherlessness is central to the debate regarding the decline of the family. It is argued by some that fatherlessness is the major cause of society's most disturbing social problems: crime, juvenile delinquency, low educational achievement, early sexuality, and substance abuse (Popenoe 1993). In addition, previous research and theory has suggested that children who grow up without a father have '"problems' in the areas of sex-role and gender identity development, school performance, psychosocial adjustment, and perhaps the control of aggression" (Lamb 1986: 15). Embedded deeply within the "family values" and "decline of the family" debate is the issue of fathers, fatherhood, and fatherlessness. According to those who support the family decline thesis, 47 father absence is a facet of the larger issue regarding the decline in marriage and increasing rates of divorce. As Popenoe claims, "The greatest legacy of the demise of the modem nuclear family is the decline of fatherhood" (1996:135). Those who challenge the family decline thesis conceptualize fatherlessness and father absence as simply one more example of family change and adaptability. In this sense, they are not "loaded" political or social conditions, but plainly consequences and realities of the diverse nature of families and family living arrangements. According to Popenoe, fatherlessness is a "human tragedy-for children, for women, for men, and for our society as a whole" (1996:2). Popenoe states, "The decline of fatherhood is one of the most basic, unexpected, and extraordinary social ~ trends of our time" (1996:2). This is a very strong statement, but certainly not an unpredicted one given the intense fervor relating to discussions about families and fathers. When applying a social constructionist perspective, it is clear that "the growing diversity of life course and residency patterns for men and children today ... need to be recognized" (Marsiglio et al2000:1175). Although this approach would be more consistent with an acknowledgement of the increasingly complex social, cultural, and biological paths to fatherhood, it is not the perspective that is seemingly the loudest in the public discourse and discussion about fathers. In this way, the link between the family decline perspective and fatherlessness as both a reason and a consequence is clear. To untangle the issue of fathers and fatherlessness, I seek to answer the following questions. What is fatherhood? What do fathers do? In addition, I include a discussion 48 suggesting "gender-free" parenting as a way to move the fatherlessness debate away from ecology and biology. What Is Fatherhood? Much of the contemporary research relating to fatherhood deals with it as a "cultural representation that is expressed through different sociocultural processes and embedded in a larger ecological context" (Marsiglio, Amato, Day, and Lamb 2000:1173). That is, although fatherhood is a social and cultural construction and process, it is fixed within a biological and ecological framework. This is a seemingly contradictory, but nonetheless an accepted way to study fatherhood (and motherhood). Scholarship on fatherhood takes into account diverse forms, and attempts to find co~ctions and associations between dimensions of fatherhood and children's outcomes (Marsiglio et al 2000). In addition to the scholarship and research dealing with fatherhood as a social and cultural process are the heated public debates related to fatherhood, namely the risks of fatherlessness. In this circumstance, fatherlessness and father absence are put forth as the major cause for social problems (Blankenhorn 1995; Popenoe 1996). The conceptualization of fatherhood as a merging between the sociocultural and biological is not unanimously held, and some, such as Popenoe believe much more strongly in the biological explanations. Popenoe begins his analysis about fathers by stating his assumptions and bias. Popenoe (1996) states, Across time and culture, fathers have always been considered by societies to be essential-and not just for their sperm. Indeed, until today, no known society ever thought of father as potentially unnecessary. Biological father are everywhere identified, if possible, and play some role in their children's upbringing. Marriage and the nuclear family-mother, father, and children-are the most universal social institutions in existence. In no society has nonmarital childbirth been the cultural norm. To the contrary, a concern for the "legitimacy" of children is another cultural near universal. The mother of an illegitimate child virtually everywhere has been regarded as a social deviant, if not a social outcast, and her child has been stigmatized. (Pages 3-4) Popenoe assumes that the nuclear family and the role of father is both universal 49 and timeless, although other social scientists and scholars have shown that variability has existed within every historical epoch (Marsiglia et al 2000). In addition, Popenoe considers the role of father as problematic for men (1996). Popenoe relates this to the notion that mothers "bear and nurture their young with an intrinsic acknowledgment ~. and ... taking on the role of father is often filled with conflict, tension, distance, and doubt" (1996:4). Popenoe relies on evolutionary science to make the claim that men, not necessarily biologically attuned for fatherhood develop paternal investment through an evolutionary process. Paternal investment, according to Popenoe, is the reason that men who are biologically unrelated to children cannot be expected to have adequate motivation and dedication to raising them (1996). Popenoe states, "Engaged biological fathers care profoundly and selflessly about their own children; such fatherly love is not something that can be transferred" (1996: 1 0). Marriage is one way of sanctioning and promoting this paternal investment by holding men to their reproductive pair relationship. Based on the idea that there is a need for marriage to ensure paternal investment, the rooted nature of fatherlessness within the family decline thesis is clear. Popenoe traces American fatherhood and asserts that the role of father has been gradually and 50 drastically decreasing, as well as changing (1996). Fathers' roles have shifted from the Puritan domestic patriarch, to the breadwinner with a marginalized household role, to a contemporary model that is something of a combination of the two, with father still being the primary breadwinner, but also expected to partake in domestic duties such as childrearing. Lamb (1986) considers fatherhood, particularly the new father as one who is "deeply involved in the day-to-day care and rearing of his children" (page 7). What Do Fathers Do? Popenoe contends, "Across all cultures, the 'natural and comfortable' way most males think, feel, and act is fundamentally different from the way most females think, feel, and act" (1996: 1 0). Further, Coltrane suggests, "fathering ... typioally implies an initial sex act and the financial obligation to pay" (1996:4). According to this standpoint, these differences are not social or gender related, but biologically and genetically related. When children are infants women are more able to read facial expressions and handle with gentleness (Rossi 1987). When children are toddlers, women provide comfort and emotional strength, while men are "typically more active and arousing in their nurturing activities" (Popenoe 1996:11 ). The way that men interact and play with children has within it an ability to foster physical skills, while emphasizing independence and autonomy. That is, men generally emphasize play over caretaking, and their play is rougher and more physical (Y ogman 1982). In addition, fathers initiate more physical types of play than mothers (Lamb 1976). Popenoe asserts other differences between mothers and fathers, namely that "mothers tend to be responsive and fathers firm; mothers stress emotional security and relationships, and fathers stress competition and 51 risk taking; mother typically express more concern for the children's immediate well- being, while fathers express more concern for the child's long-run autonomy and independence" (1996:12). In addition to the different ways that men and women play and caretake with their children are the ways in which they discipline. As a result of their greater size, children see fathers as more powerful and authoritative (Popenoe 1996: 145). Again, many social scientists that support the family decline thesis, contend that these differences are universal·and related to the sex of the parent, rather than socially constructed gender roles or cultural expectations. Lamb ( 1986) refers to three patterns of parental involvement in defining what it is that fathers do. First, is engagement or interaction, defined by Lamb as time spent with a ~, child that involves direct one-on-one contact such as feeding, playing catch, or helping with homework (1986). Second, is accessibility, meaning a parent is available and in close proximity (Lamb 1986). An example of accessibility is cooking in the kitchen while a child plays in the next room. Third, is responsibility, which Lamb considers the most important, albeit the most difficult to define (Lamb 1986). Responsibility, as a pattern of parental involvement, refers to the degree to which a parent is responsible for the everyday needs of a child, as opposed to merely being willing to "help out" (Lamb 1986). Of these three types, studies have shown responsibility as the lowest type of paternal involvement (Lamb 1986). Another way to look at what fathers do is through the generativity perspective. Generativity refers to fathers who "contribute to and renew the ongoing cycle of the generations through the care they provide as birth fathers (biological generativity), 52 childrearing fathers (parental generativity), and cultural fathers (societal generativity)" (Snarey 1993: 1 ). The generative fathering perspective emphasizes the type of work and kind of activities that father do in response to the needs of their children, as opposed to socio-cultural role impositions (Dollahite and Hawkins 1998; Hawkins and Dollahite 1997). The generative fathering perspective assumes a sense of responsible caring, and a desire to facilitate the needs of future generations. In addition to specific theories relating to the nature of fathering is the literature that looks directly at connections between father involvement and childhood outcomes. Much of the work relating to fathers and fatherhood in the 1990's investigated the variety of forms of father involvement (Marsiglio et al 2000). Father involveq;tent is generally discussed as being financial support and engagement activities, such as sharing in a leisure activity or helping with homework. In terms of economic support, fathers' earnings are positively associated with child outcomes in two-parent families (Marsiglio et al2000). This is largely related to the fact that men earn more than women, and are more likely to be employed in full time positions. Similar findings are available when exploring the patterns of nonresident fathers. With nonresident fathers, however, it is not the total income that is considered, but the amount that is transferred to the child, usually through a father's payment of child support (Marsiglio et al 2000). There are positive associations between a father's payment of child support and certain aspects of children's well-being, including grades and behavior in school (McLanahan, Seltzer, Hanson, and Thomson 1994), reading and math scores (King 1994), and total years of education (Graham, Beller, and Hernandez 1994; Knox and Bane 1994). "Gender-Free" Parenting ... A Solution to Fatherlessness? 53 The idea that fatherhood (and motherhood) is something biologically rooted and "natural" runs counter to a family change proposition. Similarly, some family change theorists challenge the idea that fathering (and mothering) are necessarily gender specific roles. Stacey proposes that people who are truly committed to the best interest of children should work to reject the "dada-ist baby talk about fatherlessness and to foster more constructive public discourse on fatherhood" (1998:63). By moving public discourse beyond the negative outcomes offatherlessness, we can actually focu~on "fatherhood". Ultimately this has the ability to lead to a discussion about parenting in general, instead of what a man/father or a woman/mother can specifically do for a child. What is most important in this sense is the "character and quality of relationships, of parenthood, and of the conditions in which these occur" (1998:69). This statement is important because it emphasizes that parenthood is about the quality of a relationship with a child, not about the gender of a parent. Ruddick, like Stacey, believes that public discussion needs to move away from the "fatherlessness" debate. Ruddick is interested not in "gender-inclusive parenthood, but male-inclusive motherhood" (1997:205). Mothering is then a caregiving style, rather than a natural or instinctual process. Ruddick challenges not only the existence, but also the necessity of distinctive maternal and paternal "roles" and "tasks" (1997:206). She seeks to address "whether there is anything in the 'nature' of children, women, or men 54 that requires a sexual division of parental labor" (Ruddick 1997 :206). Ruddick points to the seeming differences in maternal and paternal effectiveness, and asserts that rather than attributing this to "nature" the outcome is better understood as a consequence of different preparation for parenthood (1997, in Nelson). Likewise, the insufficiencies of male parents are "exaggerated by sentimental, mystifying views of the talents of female parents" (Ruddick 1997 :206). So, to the extent that mothering and fathering are gendered activities, they can be remedied by better preparing men to parent, and demystifying the mothering work that women do. Although cognizant of the social and cultural underpinnings of such a proposition, Ruddick (1997) advocates a type of gender-neutral parenting. If we tiVnk only of parenting, at the elimination of fathering, "fantasies and ideologies of Fatherhood [will] remain unchecked" (Ruddick 1997 :217). If we are going to conceptualize parenting as caregiving process that adults perform to meet the needs of children, it seems clear that there would be a diversity of ways to accomplish this. Using the term "psychological parenthood", Skolnick discusses one of the ways to conceptualize how men and women have the ability to effectively parent children. "Psychological parenthood" is a legal term used to define the person (or persons) "to whom the child has the closest emotional ties, whether or not that person is biologically related to the child" (Skolnick 1998:237). This definition seems to encompass a great deal of what is meant by parenting today. A psychological parent could be biologically related to the child, or not. It could be any number of adults from the biological mother, to the stepfather, to the lover of the stepmother. What is 55 underlying, and most important is the adult's relationship to the child. The care giving relationship is at the crux of "parenting". When positioned this way parenting does not end up conflated with either mothering or fathering. It is a caregiving category unto itself. Skolnick does not focus on the difference between mothers and fathers, but rather on the likeness of parents. She conceptualizes parenting as potentially separate from biology. Parenting concerns the best interests of the child, not the genetics or gender of the parent. Issues Relating to Race and Family When examining African American families, the discourse surrounding fathers and fatherlessness becomes even more intense and fervent. Studies have suggested that when African American fathers do not reside in the home with their s<ms there is a resulting hypermasculinity that leads to delinquency and other problems (Segal 1990). This contemporary work echoes Moynihan's (1965) assertion that reducing the number of female-headed households reduces the "pathological" nature of female-headed households that characterizes African American family life. With regards to the demographic shifts of African American families, Kaplan states, "The number of Black households headed by single Black women with children climbed from a low of25 percent in the 1950's to 61 percent by the early 1990's" (1997:3). Further, the fertility rates among African American teenage girls age 17 and younger have risen during the past forty years, making the African American birth rate for this age group two to three times higher than that among white teenagers (Kaplan 1997). The popular media, characterizing African American nonmarital childbearing within a framework of "family values" decline, uses this information in misleading ways. The image of the collapse of the African American family "feeds on racist stereotypes and media distortions, ignoring the diversity of African American family life" (Coontz 1992:232). 56 There are a number of theories that seek to explain the escalation of nonmarital childbearing, divorce, and other "alternative" family arrangements. Three theories are essential to understanding these trends, particularly as they relate to issues facing African American families: feminist theory, the culture of poverty, and the motherhood strategy. Feminist theory describes trends in nonmarital childbearing and divorce as they relate to women changing roles in society. Both the culture of poverty theory, and motherhood strategy seek understanding specifically for families of color. Feminist theory provides much insight into trends of nonmarital childbearing and divorce. Hochschild suggests, "Each marriage bears the footprints of economic and cultural trends that originate far outside marriage" (1989: 11 ). That is, marriage is very much a construction of the specific economic, political, and social time; and women's roles in society will understandably change both as a cause and as an effect of how marriage and childbearing are constructed. Of primary significance is the rate at which women are entering, re-entering, and remaining in the workforce (Hochschild 1989). In 1990, nearly 70% of all women aged 24 to 34 worked outside the home (Coontz 1992). One way that feminist theory has explained marriage is as an economic contract; and if women are able to provide economically for themselves, marriage becomes less and less of a necessity. Similarly, as sexual norms expand, it is also not necessary for women to 57 be married to have sexual relationships (Friedan 1963). For the most part, feminist theory is critical of marriage, describing it in terms of patriarchal oppression (Cheal1991). In taking all these factors together, feminist theory provides a reasonable explanation for contemporary trends in nonmarital childbearing and divorce. Unfortunately, feminist theory has very little to say about the effects of race and social class. For the most part, feminist theory is based on a white middle-class perspective. Poor women, and women of color have a much more longstanding tradition of working outside the home (Hochschild 1989). In addition, feminist theory only sees one side of the economic argument for (and against) marriage. It suggests that marriage is less necessary as women's earning power increases, but neglects the oppo~ite argument that marriage is also less desirable when faced with economic marginality (See Tucker and Mitchell-Keman 1995). Perhaps then, the different rates ofnonmarital childbearing and divorce can be seen as women of color and po~r women having long started a trend that is now "normative" for white and middle-class women. While feminist theory focuses on white middle-class women, there are two explanations that concentrate on women of color and poor women: culture of poverty, and the motherhood strategy. The culture of poverty explanation describes the family processes of families of color in terms of deficits in behaviors, morals, and values. Sociologists repeatedly challenge this perspective, most often associated with Moynihan, as it fails to recognize the importance of structure. Moynihan (1965) suggested that African Americans were caught in a "cycle of poverty" and a ''tangle of pathology" rooted in the weaknesses associated with a female-headed family structure. Moynihan's 58 (1965) report advised that the misfortunes and disadvantages faced by African Americans could be traced back directly to the absence of fathers in the home. The position of the Moynihan Report of 1965 is more of a cultural myth (Battle and Bennett 1997), and empirical data fails to support it. Trends in African American communities toward higher rates of single mother families do not in and of themselves associate with negative childhood outcomes. In addition, Moynihan neglects many other factors, namely socioeconomic ones, as important. Battle and Bennett assert that, "The tendency has been to worry about the supposedly self-defeating behaviors of the Black poor, not poverty itself' (1997: 151 ). Missing entirely from the culture of poverty argument is any account as to how structural and institutional factors \pfluence family processes. Moreover, the culture of poverty argument assumes the superiority of the intact or ''traditional" family, completely ignoring the diversity of family structures that pervade American society. Challenging the culture of poverty theory, Kaplan ( 1997) suggests another argument, the motherhood strategy, as an alternative explanation for the family processes of some African American families. Kaplan's (1997) motherhood strategy is primarily an explanation of African American teenage motherhood, but it is also useful in understanding the general trends (by race and social class) in nonmarital childbearing and divorce. The motherhood strategy focuses on the intersecting realities of race, social class, and gender. The young African American mothers that Kaplan studies, "were not behaving pathologically, but were using the only strategy they believed was available to them" ( 1997: 181 ). Faced with an educational system that ignores them, and an economy that marginalizes them, young African American women feel they are "powerless" (Kaplan 1997). Motherhood enables these women to control an aspect of their lives (Kaplan 1997). In this sense, motherhood is used as a strategy of resistance. 59 Marriage feasibility and desirability also play into this model. Kaplan (1997) challenges the culture of poverty argument by positing that families and communities do not necessarily condone teenage childbearing. This analysis challenges the culture of poverty argument, as well as popularly held assumptions about African American family life. Overall, the culture of poverty argument does little to explain the escalation of nonmarital childbearing and divorce. It simply "blames the victim," ~thout providing any understanding for how social structures influence family processes. Feminist theory provides some useful insights, but does little to further race and social class differences. Kaplan's ( 1997) motherhood strategy offers a salient explanation, taking into account the important ways that race, social class, and gender interact in the lives of women of color. In addition to the negative constructions associated with African American women, are those facing African American men. Again, these negative constructions are related back to issues of family. The problems of young African American males that are given particular attention in the media - gang membership, low high school completion rates, high incarceration rates, high probabilities of being homicide victims, and so on are often linked to fatherlessness in both public discourse and social science research (e.g., USA Today 1996; Harper and McLanahan 1998). Media attention (and inattention) to black males is twofold. Fears are perpetuated by excessive coverage of the danger that a 60 very small percentage of black men create for other people (Glassner 1999). Likewise, this happens with the relative lack of reporting to the dangers the majority of black men themselves face (Glassner 1999). Looking specifically at crime as an example, "many more black men are causalities of crime than are perpetrators, but their victimization does not attract the media spotlight the way their crimes do" (Glassner 1999:109). These trends in media coverage connect to the issues of this chapter because the negative portrayal of black men is often subsumed within a discourse on family structure. That is, the supposed danger that black men (fathers and sons) create for the rest of the population is connected in theory and in discourse to the demographic pervasiveness of female headed households in African American communities (Darity and Myfrs 1995). Deviant black fathers who live away from their families, namely their sons, are likely to engender similar deviant outcomes in their children. Although these presuppositions are faulty, the underlying story is that the destructive state of black family life is responsible for the dangers the rest of the population faces when dealing with black men. Differences in educational attainment between African Americans and whites have long been researched and documented. Studies of racial gaps in educational achievement often focus on black/white differences in dimensions of family background: number of siblings and birth order (Kuo and Hauser 1995), divorce (Battle 1995), family structure (Battle 1998a; Battle 1998b ), maternal and paternal influences (Reeder and Conger 1984 ), and parental schooling and occupational status (Kuo and Hauser 1995; Battle 1998a; Battle 1998b ). In what ways does childhood family structure effect the long-term educational attainment of African Americans and whites? And more importantly, are the effects of childhood family structure similar or different when comparing the two racial groups? Hypothesis and Supporting and Challenging Theory Hl: Childhood Family Structure is More Consequential for the Educational Achievement of African American Children, Particularly Boys, than White Children This hypothesis derives from the "pathology of matriarchy" perspective developed and applied to the African American family most directly by Moynihan 61 (1965). Likewise, this hypothesis follows the most common popular preconceptions and discourses about African American families ... that in some way they are "more" influential for children than white families in terms of future outcomes related to ~ education. According to this notion, African American children, because of race and racism, are at a higher "risk" to begin with, therefore being raised by two biological parents becomes especially essential to secure children's overall well-being and future educational and occupational attainment. Accordingly, growing up without a father will be particularly destructive and damaging to African American children, because it "means that children will lack the economic resources, discipline, structure, and guidance that a father provides" (Biblarz and Raftery 1999:321). One report notes: "[African · American] boys and young men, without the protection and guidance of fathers, struggle each day to figure out what it means to be a man, improvising for themselves expedient, and too often violent and self-destructive, codes of manhood" (Morehouse Research Institute and Institute for American Values 1999, p. 8). This quote suggests the corollary hypothesis that among African American sons, the negative effect of fatherlessness on 62 selected child outcomes will be greater than for African American daughters. That is, fatherlessness is especially detrimental for African American boys. The theory suggests that boys need a male role model to succeed, and are therefore at an even greater disadvantage than girls when they grow up in father absent families. Challenging the theory that childhood family structure is more consequential for African Americans is that which suggests that African American family structure is in fact less influential than for other racial groups. African American families have a long history of adaptation to family disruption induced (in fact often forced) by slavery and slaveholders, Jim Crow laws, and other manifestations of both de jure and de facto racism. Historical research shows that from 1880 through 1960, Afri~an American children were between two and three times more likely than whites to reside without one or even both parents (Ruggles 1994). Given these data, it could be said that alternative family structures are not new to African American families, but in a sense normative. Research like Hill's (1971; 1993; 1999) emphasizes the resilient capacities of African American families to care and provide for children under difficult conditions (like fatherlessness) by forming extended and fictive kin networks. Fictive kin are defined as persons who are treated as "family", but who are not biologically related (Chatters, Taylor, and Jayakody 1994). Historically, in father-absent African American families, someone other than the biological father often played the "fatherly" role. Likewise, aunts, uncles and grandparents (biologically and/or socially related) have been documented as being instrumental in the rearing of children. Although there is theory in this case to suggest that parental substitutes, and fictive kin networks are influential in the lives of 63 African American children, there is little or no research to prove empirically that certain outcomes, like educational attainment are impacted in a positive manner. In addition to the historical "normativity" of diverse family patterns for African Americans is theory relating directly to marriage. Tucker and Mitchell-Keman (1995) suggest three factors that mediate marriage for African Americans: the availability of mates, the feasibility of marriage, and the desirability of marriage. Imbalanced sex ratios, with more "marriageable" women than men, in African American communities provide one possible explanation for lower marriage rates, as well as higher nonmarital childbearing rates. Similarly, the feasibility of marriage, as it relates to economic feasibility is important. Tucker and Mitchell-Keman suggest that Afrifan American marital feasibility has declined because the increasing economic marginality of African American men has made them "less attractive as potential husbands, and less interested in becoming husbands" (1995:18). The desirability (and undesirability) of marriage results from increased rates, and greater acceptance of cohabitation, as well as changing attitudes about marriage. Tucker and Mitchell-Kernan observe "Americans in general, and African Americans in particular, have become increasingly more accepting of singlehood" (1995:19). For these reasons, fictive kin networks, parental substitutes, and "normativity" in family diversity, fatherlessness should be less consequential for African American children than white children, because it is more "normative" in African American communities. Because of this, African American families will presumably be able to / 64 draw on a historically-developed set of adaptive extended family and kinship strategies to buffer children from its potentially negative effects. Further, some historical theories suggest that in a social structure characterized by institutional barriers based on race, micro-level family processes will be less relevant to children's success. This was first shown in Duncan's (1968) classic study. For white sons, coming from lower versus middle class families made a huge difference towards their socioeconomic attainment, but for African American sons it made very little difference (Duncan 1968). African American sons tended to occupy low socioeconomic destinations irrespective of whether they had middle or lower class family backgrounds, suggesting that resulting from institutionalized racism, African Ameqcan families who achieved middle class status were less able than white families to pass on those advantages to their children. By extension, other aspects of family background, like fatherlessness, may have weaker effects as well. In this argument, the effects of institutional racism are so severe that they displace the effects of family structure, namely fatherlessness. In addition to theory predicting that childhood family structure is more (and less) consequential for African American families is that which suggests that race is not a necessarily a factor when predicting how family structure affects future educational attainment. There is a degree of consensus among social scientists that the intact family is superior in structure, and in its ability to socialize children. This consensus reflects an essentialist perspective of family structure. The United States has a higher rate of divorce and remarriage relative to other Western nations (Cherlin and Furstenberg 1994). 65 Regardless, there is an embedded notion that idealizes and normalizes the two-biological parent family. Family structure models in sociology emphasize the fundamental importance of family structure for children's attainment. There is an assumption that being raised by two-biological parents (or not) is the crucial determinant of child outcomes. With two parents, for example, children learn about successful interaction with persons in a position of authority (Nock 1988). In the absence of two-biological parent families, parent/child relations can become more peer-like, and children do not learn these important life skills (Biblarz and Raftery 1999). In addition, theory in evolutionary psychology, for example inclusive fitness ~ ' theory, predicts that adult investment in children will be proportional to their degree of relatedness. This argument is in line with Popenoe's that suggest that only biological fathers will be invested in the lives of their own children. Since biological parents have more of their reproductive fitness tied up in biological children than any other relative or parent-like figure, children raised by two biological parents will be advantaged relative to children raised in other kinds of families, irrespective of race. This theory is not empirically testable, but speculative in its attempt to understand the affects of family structure and childhood outcomes and well-being. Further, there is an assumption that race is not a determining characteristic. Hence both structural family models in sociology and evolutionary psychology would predict no differences in outcomes between African American and white children from single-mother (and other types of) families, because they share the same basic 66 family structure. Of particular interest here is that following this hypothesis race "doesn't matter". Developmental theory in sociology and psychology, as well as evolutionary psychology models generally assign special importance to the role of the mother, namely the ways in which maternal investment secures children's future well-being and achievement. Within these models, distinctions are not made with respect to the race or gender of a child. While it is most advantageous for children to grow up with both biological parents, it is the role of the mother that receives the most attention. Following the work of Popenoe and others, mothers are typically seen as the primary caregivers of children. There is also a cultural expectation that children will have ( apd more " importantly live with) a mother. This is not necessarily the case for fathers and their children. Results I test the primary hypothesis regarding the effects of childhood family structure on long-term educational attainment. In terms of long-term educational attainment, is childhood family structure less, more, and equally consequential for African Americans and whites? The means, as well as percentages and N' s, where appropriate, of the independent and dependent variables used in these analyses are provided in Table 3.1. Of interest from this table are the differences in percentages of childhood family arrangement by race. For whites, 83% lived in two-biological parent families, while for African Americans it was 64%. Also, 22% of African Americans lived with single mothers, and 8% of whites. In addition, the total average number of years of education 67 was 11.94 for African Americans from two-biological families, and 12.95 for whites. For each of the remaining family types (single mother, single father, and mother/stepfather), there was a slight decrease from this base line for both whites and African Americans. Tables 3.2 and 3.3 show the effects of childhood family structure on long-term educational attainment for African Americans (Table 3.2) and whites (Table 3.3). In each of the tables, the first panel shows the estimated associations ( unstandardized betas from ols-regression models) between respondent's total years of education and family background (childhood family structure and socioeconomic origins). The first model shows the total effect of childhood family structure, and the second model includes controls for the family's socioeconomic position. Model2 is re-estim~ted in Model3, " except the childhood family structure dummy variables are replaced with the distance from mother scale. (Please refer back to Chapter 2 for a full discussion on the distance from mother scale). The second, third, and fourth panels follow the same step-wise pattern for the three educational transition variables, and shows the estimates from logistic regression models. High school completion is the outcome of interest for the second panel. The dependent variable in the third panel is college attendance (given high school completion), and in the fourth panel graduation from college (given college entry). BIC (Bayesian Inferential Criterion) scores are provided to compare the relative goodness of fit of the different models. 3 3 The Bayesian Inferential Criterion (BIC) is the standard model comparison statistic in sociology. BIC scores are used in the same way as P-values, to test the fit of the data to the model, but are thought to be more reliable, especially with large samples. In addition, BIC is able to discern which variables are most Table3.1 Means of Independent and Dependent Variables by Childhood Family Structure and Race Respondents Ages 25-64 in the Pooled 1962 OCGI, 1973 OCGII, 1986-88 SIPPs, 1992-94 NSFH2, and 1972-98 GSS Surveys White Variable Education Total Years High School Completion Entry into College College Completion Socioeconomic Origins % N Family head's occupational status Family head was not employed African American Variable Education Total Years High School Completion Entry into College College Completion Socioeconomic Origins % N Family head's occupational status Family head was not employed 1 Also mcludes father/stepmother families Childhood Family Structure Two-Biological Single Mother Single Father Mother/ Parent Family Family Family' Stepfather Family 12,95 12,32 12,24 12,31 0,82 0,75 0,72 0,75 0,47 0,38 0,37 0,38 0,25 0,17 0,16 0,14 36,10 30,27 34,59 34,02 0,05 0,32 0,07 0,10 83% 8% 3% 5% 67905 6645 2773 4388 Childhood Family Structure Two-BiologicalSingle Mother Single Father tJother/ Parent Family Family Family' Stepfather Family 11,94 0,69 0,35 0,14 25,96 0,09 64% 5668 11,65 0,65 0,32 0,09 22,28 0,33 22% 1938 11,15 0,59 0,25 0,06 24,89 0,15 5% 452 11,65 0,66 0,33 0,09 26,31 0,16 9% 841 Note--OCG I and OCG II include men only. SIPPs, NSFH2, and GSS include men and women. For OCG I and OCG II, I use Duncan's (1961) SEI for 1960 census occupational titles. For SIPPs and NSFH, Hauser and Warren's (1997) update of Duncan's SEI for 1980 and 1990 census titles is used. "Family head was not employed" does not include missing values on origin SEI. important, regardless of the R-square value being higher. The lower the BIC score, the better the model captures the main features of the data relative to other models. BIC scores allow for easy comparison of across models, and permit the quantification of the evidence for the hypothesis of interest. For a more in depth discussion ofBIC, see Adrian Raftery's Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research, 1995. 68 Table 3.2 Afrkan Americans: Estimates of the Effects ofDimensions of Family Background on Educational Outcomes Respondents Ages 25-64 in the Pooled 1962 OCGI, 1973 OCGII,.1986-88 SIPPs, 1992-94 NSFH2, and 1972-98 GSS Surveys Inde~dent Variables Education (years) High School Comeietion Entry into College Colle~e Completion I 2 3 I 2 3 I 2 3 I 2 Childhood family structure Two biological parent family (reference) Single mother family -0,5I ... -O,I7 • - -0,45 ••• -0,25 ... - -O,I6 • 0,05 - -0,45 ••• -0,27 • Odds Ratio 0,78 1,05 0,77 Single father family 1 -0,59 ••• -0,53 ••• - -0,39 •• -0,36 .. - -0,35 • -0,33 • - -0,65 •• -0,67 •• Odds Ratio 0,70 0,72 0,51 Mother/stepfather family -0,50 ••• -0,45 ••• - -0,34 ••• -0,32 ••• - -0,09 -0,04 - -0,52 •• -0,48 .. Odds Ratio 0,72 0,96 0,62 Distance from mother scale - - -0,23 ••• - - -O,I8 ••• - - -0,04 - - Gender (female= I) 0,37 ••• 0,30 ••• 0,29 ••• O,I8 •• 0,12. O,I2. 0,22 ... 0,20 ••• 0,20 ••• -O,OI -O,OI Socioeconomic origins Family head's occupational status - 0,04 ••• 0,04 ••• - 0,03 ••• 0,03 ••• - 0,03 ••• 0,03 ... - 0,03 ••• Family head was not employed - -0,60 ••• -0,58 ... - -0,34 .. • -0,36 ••• - -0,40 ••• -0,38 ••• - -0,39 •• N 8899 8899 8899 8899 8899 8899 586I 586I 586I 2887 2887 x1 1140 I273 I272 84 256 25I 48 142 R2 0,20 0,23 0,23 df 7 9 7 7 9 7 7 9 7 7 9 BIC -I922 -2244 -2262 -1076 -119I -I208 -23 -I78 -190 8 -70 • p < .05 •• p < .OI ••• p < .OOI (two-tailed) I !I 1 Aiso includes father/stepmother families 3 -0,26 ••• -O,OI 0,03 ••• -0,39 •• 2887 I4I 7 -85 0\ \0 Table3.l Wllites: Estimates of tile Efl'eds of Dimensions of FamDy Background on Educational Outcomes Ages 25-64 in tile Pooled 1962 OCGI, 1973 OCGII, 1986-88 SJPPs, 1992-94 NSFB2, and 1972-98 GSS Surveys Independent Variables Education (years) High School Completion 1 2 3 1 2 3 Childhood family structure Two biological parent family (reference) Single mother family -0,64 ••• -0,11 ••• - -0,51 ••• -0,12 ••• - Odds Ratio 0,89 Single father family 1 -0,69 ••• -0,59 ••• - -0,61 ••• -0,58 *** - Odds Ratio 0,56 Mother/stepfather family -0,82 ••• -0,64 ••• - -0,70 ••• -0,63 *** - Odds Ratio 0,53 Distance from mother scale - - -0,28 *** - - -0,28 ••• Gender (female= I) -0,14 ••• -0,13 *** -0,13 ••• 0,14 *** 0,12 ••• 0,12 *** Socioeconomic origins Family head's occupational status - 0,05 *** -0,05 *** - 0,04 *** 0,04 *** Family head was not employed - -0,82 ••• -0,77 *** - -0,76 ••• -0,70 ••• N 81708 81708 81708 81708 81708 81708 x2 6026 10243 10219 R2 0,09 0,20 0,21 df 7 9 7 7 9 7 BIC -7627 -18131 -19181 -5947 -10141 -10140 * p < ** p < .01 *** p < .001 (two-tailed) 1 Also includes father/stepmother families / ,. En21: into College 1 2 -0,26 ••• 0,03 1,03 -0,21 ••• -0,20 *** 0,82 -0,29 *** -0,22 *** 0,81 - - -0,27 *** -0,26 *** - 0,04 ... - -0,32 *** 64924 64924 1245 5945 7 9 -1167 -5845 College Completion 3 1 2 3 - -0,32 *** -0,13 ** 0,87 - -0,45 ••• -0,42 *** 0,65 - -0,70 ••• -0,63 *** 0,53 -0,08 *** - -0,31 *** -0,27 *** -0,31 *** -0,31 *** -0,31 *** 0,04 *** - 0,02 *** 0,02 *** -0,30 *** - -0,17 *** -0,15 ** 64924 35669 35669 35669 5931 476 1589 1575 7 7 9 7 -5853 -403 -1495 -1502 ......:. 0 71 Across all of the models, except entry into college, childhood family structure and distance from mother are significant predictors of future educational attainment for both African Americans and whites. In most cases, adding the controls for socioeconomic origins mediates the effect of childhood family structure, but it does not eliminate its significance. That is, much of the variation in educational attainment initially thought to be explained by childhood family structure is actually a result of socioeconomic origin. When controlling for family socioeconomic background, we see that the relative decrease in educational attainment between children who grew up in two-biological parent families and those who grew up in alternative families is least for those respondents who grew up in single mother homes. This trend is consistent for both African Americans and ~ whites. That is, among both African Americans and whites, those who ~ew up in single mother families had educational attainments most similar to those from two-biological parent families. The first panel of Table 3.2 shows that among African Americans, the negative effects of living in alternative family structures are most severe for those respondents who grew up with a single father ( -0.53), as opposed to a single mother (-0.17), or their mother and stepfather (-0.45). The first panel of Table 3.3 shows that for whites, the largest decrease in total years of education was among those who grew up in mother- stepfather families (-0.64). The second panel of Tables 3.2 and 3.3 shows that for educational transitions beyond ninth grade, the experience of living in alternative families during childhood has an important effect. When controlling for family socioeconomic background, African 72 Americans from single mother families have about 20% (see odds ratio) lower odds than their counterparts from two-biological parent families of completing high school. These odds increase to about 30% less likely for those respondents from single father or mother- stepfather families. Whites from single mother families are only about 10% less likely to graduate from high school than other whites that grew up with both biological parents. The difference between this result and those for single father or mother-stepfather families is interesting. Among whites from single father or mother-stepfather families, the likelihood of completing high school is nearly 50% that of their two-biological family counterparts. The third panel of Tables 3.2 and 3.3 shows that when controlling for ~ socioeconomic origins, the impact of childhood family structure on the transition from high school graduation to attending college shows little significance for either African Americans or whites. African Americans from single father families are about 30% less likely to attend college. Whites from single father or mother-stepfather families are about 20% less likely. The fourth panel of Tables 3.2 and 3.3 shows that the effect of childhood family structure on college graduation is significant for all alternative family types. For African Americans, the lowest odds of college completion (0.51) are among those respondents who grew up in a single father family. There is a relative increase in odds for respondents from mother-stepfather families (0.62), as well as those from single mother families (0. 77). Odds of college completion among whites from mother-stepfather families are 73 0.53. They are slightly better for those from single father families (0.65), and even higher for those from single mother families (0.87). , Of definite interest is the difference between men and women from the different racial groups. For African American women, gender is advantageous. Independent of other factors, African American women average about a third of a year more education than African American men. The increase for African American women is significant for both high school completion and college attendance. For white women, on the other hand, a disadvantage of about a tenth of a year in overall education results from gender. When looking at the educational transitions, white women are at a disadvantage for both college attendance and college completion, but at an advantage in tert{ls of high school completion. In all but one of the models for both whites and African Americans the BIC best model was the one that included the distance from mother scale. For African American men and women, the total number of years of education, high school completion, entry into college, and college completion were all best fit with the distance from mother scale. For total years of education, African Americans lost nearly one quarter of a year ( -0.23) for each step on the distance from mother scale. Likewise, for white respondents, the distance from mother scale proved to be the best fit for each regression model, except high school completion. Like African Americans, whites lost just over one quarter of a year ( -0.28) in overall years of education for each step on the distance from mother scale. For whites high school completion, the BIC score for the full model was only slightly better than the distance from mother scale (-10141 and -10140). 74 Recalling the distance from mother scale discussion from Chapter 2, Biblarz, Raftery, and Bucur ( 1997) found that both white and African American men from single mother headed families had similar socioeconomic attainment as those from two biological-parent headed families. In addition, they found that for all other family structure types (father-headed and stepfqmily) there was a negative association between family type and future socioeconomic attainment (Biblarz et al. 1997). The role of mothers is important when looking at the process of intergenerational transmission of social mobility and socioeconomic attainment as well as that of long-term educational attainment. Mothers are seen in this model as a major factor in determining future socioeconomic attainment. This finding illustrates that it is not necessarily that children who live in families that do not meet the two-biological parent model have negative outcomes, because a single mother family scores nearly as high on the distance from mother scale, but that one's relative detachment from their mother is most important when understanding the differentials between family structure and long-term educational attainment. This finding challenges the theory that childhood well-being, and specifically educational achievement is largely determined on having two parents in the home. Similarly, this finding challenges the idea that family structure, namely having a father present, is even more crucial for African Americans. This is particularly evident by the finding that in terms of total years of education, respondents from single mother families ( -0.51 ), and those from mother/stepfather families ( -0.50) had the same average years of education, but those from single father families ( -0.59) fared slightly worse. 75 Differences between the coefficients shown in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 are shown in Table 3.4 as a series oft-tests. This table shows the results that speak most directly to the primary research question of this study. How does the importance (or lack of importance) of childhood family structure differ between African Americans and whites? The first panel on Table 3.4 shows that there are no differences between African Americans and whites with respect to the effects of childhood family structure on one's total years of education. That is, African Americans and whites from similar family background types experience similar education outcomes. This means that, overall, the consequences of growing up in single mother, single father, and stepfamilies for children's educational attainment are relatively the same for African Americans and whites. One slight anomaly ~ ' is this finding is that the negative effect of living in a single mother home is significantly higher for African American women than white women. This is of particular interest because the literature suggests, as does the primary hypothesis for this research, that father absence is more consequential for African American sons, but the data shows that is it daughters who suffer the most in terms of total years of education. Table3.4 T-Tests for Differences in the Effects of Dimensions of Family Background on Educational Outcomes Respondents Ages25-64 in the 1%2 OCGI, 1973 OCGII, 1986-88 SIPPs, 1992-94 NSFH2, and 1972-98 GSS Men and Women Independent Variables Two biological parent family (reference) Single mother family Single father family 1 Mother/stepfather family Distance from mother scale Family head's occupational status Family head was not employed Men Independent Variables Two biological parent family (reference) Single mother family Single father family 1 Mother/stepfather family Distance from mother scale Family head's occupational status Family head was not employed Women Independent Variables Two biological parent family (reference) Single mother family Single father family 1 Mother/stepfather family Distance from mother scale Family head's occupational status Family head was not employed • p < .05 •• p < .01 ••• p < .001 (two-tailed) Education (years) Black t-value White -0,17 -0,82 -0,11 -0,53 0,46 -0,59 -0,45 1,87 -0,64 -0,23 1,36 -0,28 0,04 -3,71 ••• 0,05 -0,60 2,55 • -0,82 Education (years) Black t-value White -0,05 0,93 -0,16 -0,40 1,17 -0,63 -0,41 1,23 -0,61 -0,17 1,83 -0,28 0,04 -3,30 •• 0,05 -0,81 0,61 -0,89 Education (years) Black t-value White -0,29 -2,50 • -0,02 -0,67 -0,79 -0,52 -0,50 1,37 -0,68 -0,28 0,03 -0,28 0,05 -1,59 0,05 -0,36 2,88 •• -0,70 1 Also includes father/stepmother families High School Completion Black t-value White -0,25 -1,63 -0,12 -0,36 1,70 -0,58 -0,32 3,07 •• -0,63 -0,18 2,53 • -0,28 0,03 -6,33 ***0,04 -0,34 4,97 ••• -0,76 Hi§h School Completion Black t-value White -0,14 -0,07 -0,13 -0,20 2,29 • -0,60 -0,21 1,8~ -0,48 -0,11 2,5t • -0,24 0,02 -5,61 ••• 0,04 -0,35 3,47 ••• -0,73 Hi§h School Completion Black t-value White -0,39 -2,48 • -0,07 -0,58 -0,10 -0,56 -0,45 2,46 • -0,79 -0,26 1,22 -0,33 0,04 -3,26 •• 0,05 -0,36 3,66 ••• -0,83 76 Table 3.4 (Continued) T-Tests for Differences in the Effects of Dimensions of Family Background on Educational Outcomes Respondents Ages 25-64 in the 1962 OCGI,1973 OCGII,1986-88 SIPPs, 1992-94 NSFH2, and 1972-98 GSS Men and Women Inde~ndent Variables En!2: into Colleie Colleie Comeietion Black t-value White Black t-value White Two biological parent family (reference) Single mother family 0,05 0,23 0,03 -0,27 -1,07 -0,13 Single father family 1 -0,33 -0,89 -0,20 -0,67 -0,94 -0,42 Mother/stepfather family -0,04 1,62 -0,22 -0,48 0,98 -0,63 Distance from mother scale -0,04 0,93 -0,08 -0,26 -0,15 -0,31 Family head's occupational status 0,03 -3,01 •• 0,04 0,03 1,87 0,02 Famill: head was not em[!IOl:ed -0 2 40 -0 2 90 -0 2 32 -0 2 39 -1 2 39 -0217 Men lnde~ndent Variables En!2: into Colleie Colleie Comeletion Black t-value White Black t-value White Two biological parent family (reference) Single mother family 0,10 1,08 -0,03 -0,16 -0,37 -0,10 Single father family 1 -0,34 -0,85 -0,15 -0,55 -0,26 -0,45 Mother/stepfather family -0,01 1,36 -0,23 -0,43 0,74 ~-0,61 Distance from mother scale -0,03 0,98 -0,09 -0,22 0,26 '-0,24 Family head's occupational status 0,03 -1,51 0,03 0,03 1,84 '0,02 Familx head was not em[!Ioxed -0255 -1283 -0230 -0,52 -1 2 46 -0,16 Women Inde~ndent Variables En!2: into Colleie Colleie Comeietion Black t-value White Black t-value White Two biological parent family (reference) Single mother family 0,00 -1,00 0,12 -0,36 -0,82 -0,22 Single father family 1 -0,34 -0,38 -0,26 -0,82 -1,21 -0,37 Mother/stepfather family -0,09 0,81 -0,20 -0,51 0,75 -0,68 Distance from mother scale -0,07 0,24 -0,08 -0,31 -0,35 -0,28 Family head's occupational status 0,03 -3,19 •• 0,04 0,03 0,72 0,02 Famill: head was not em[!IOl:ed -0227 0248 -0 2 33 -0 2 31 -0,64 -0217 *p <.05 •• p <.01 ••• p < .001 (two-tailed) 1 Aiso includes father/stepmother families 77 78 The t-tests do show significant differences in the educational transition of high school completion. Among both men and women, the negative effect associated with living in a mother-stepfather family, as well as one's distance from mother, is significantly higher for African Americans. This means that for African Americans, living in mother-stepfather families, as well as living away from one's mother is more likely to be associated with dropping out of high school. Looking specifically at men, we also see that the effects of living with a single father and one's distance from mother are significantly higher for African Americans than whites. For women, there is no difference when examining one's distance from mother, but the effects of living in a single mother family are less significant for African American women. The educational transition from '- high school graduation to entry into college, and from college attendance to college graduation holds no differences between African Americans and whites in terms of childhood family structure. Graphic representations of the statistical coefficients and probabilities are provided as a series of four figures. Figure 3.1 represents race and gender differences in total years of education by family background type. Although the graphic representations show dissimilarities in mean years of education, these differences are not statistically significant, and do not show a true empirical difference. As noted in the previous discussion of the t-tests, the only anomaly to the finding that there are no racial difference in the effect of family background on future educational attainment is that the negative 14 12 c 10 0 ·.;::; "' 0 ::s -o 8 j:.t.l .... 0 "' ... "' Cl) 6 >- t:: "' Cl) ;:;g 4 2 0 Figure 3.1, Race and Gender Differences in Total Years of Education by Family Type White Men White Women African American Men African American Women • Two Biological Parent Family Single Father Family I .I I D Single Mother Fam1 y D Mother/Stepfather Family -....) \0 80 effect of living in a single mother home is higher for African American women than white women. Again, this is counter to the common sense argument that family disruption, and living in a family other than a two biological parent family is especially problematic for African American boys. Figure 3.2 illustrates race and gender differences in the probability of high school graduation. It is only at this particular educational transition that there are racial and gender based differences with regard to family background and education. I suggest that this difference be seen as an indicator of the racial disparities in education facing African Americans, not as evidence of family background being more substantive for African Americans. As shown in Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4, there are again no statistically ~ significant differences with relation to college entry or subsequent coll~ge graduation with respect to race, gender, family background and future educational attainment. If family background were truly more consequential for the future educational attainment of African Americans, there would be many more indications of its empirical significance. What I have found in this research is much far less reaching and inconsistent. Consistent, though, with other data (McLanahan 1985; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994 ), this research has shown that there are highly significant differences with regard to socioeconomic origins. In the case of overall educational attainment, we see that the effect of family head's occupational status is significantly lower among African Americans than whites. That is, family head's occupational status is less important for 0.9 § 0.8 -~ .g 0 ro .7 Ci g 0.6 ..s:: 0 [/) -Eh 0.5 tE '() 0.4 . £ ] 0.3 ro .rJ 0 ... P-. 0.1 0 Figure 3.2, Race and Gender Differences in High School Graduation by Family Type White Men White Women African American Men African American Women • Two Biological Parent Family II Single Father Family D Single Mother Family D Mother/Stepfather Family 00 ....... 0.9 0.8 § 0.7 II) ~ 0.6 8 't 0.5 .£ :a 0.4 «< .D 0 P:: 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Figure 3.3, Race and Gender Differences in College Entry by Family Type White Men White Women African American Men African American Women • Two Biological Parent Family II Single Father Family D Single Mother Family D Mother/Stepfather Family 00 N Figure 3.4, Race and Gender Differences in College Graduation by Family Type 0.5 .--------------------------------------------------------------. 0.45 0.4 t:: .Sl ~ 0.35 --g ~ 0.3 Oil Q) 8 0.25 ...... 0 g 0.2 :.0 2 0.15 0 P:: 0.1 0.05 0 White Men White Women African American Men African American Women • Two Biological Parent Family I I FJI Single Father Family 0 Single Mother Family 0 Mother/Stepfather Family 00 w 84 African Americans than it is for whites. This finding fits with Duncan's (1968) previous work that suggests that for African Americans, outcomes related to social structures, such as education and occupation, which are characterized by institutional racism have less to do with micro-level family processes, and more to do with racism. Each outcome associated with family head's occupational status that contains a significant difference between African Americans and whites follows this same pattern. In the following section, I discuss these results in terms of the hypothesis, as well as the overall theoretical importance and significance. Discussion and Conclusion The primary hypothesis, "Childhood Family Structure is More Consequential for the Educational Achievement of African American Children, Particularly Boys, than White Children" is not supported by the data. Although popular media and family discourse suggest that children, particularly African American boys, need the presence of a male in their home to succeed educationally and in future occupations, this empirical research does not substantiate that claim. To support this hypothesis, one would expect to see the t-test differences between African American men and white men to be highly significant, but this is not the case. Similarly, if this claim were accurate, and the presence of a male could (in theory) counter the harmful effects of alternative family structures, the t-values for single father and mother-stepfather families would be significant and negative, but they are not. Therefore, this research has disproved a major "common sense" supposition. 85 In addition, are the two challenging and embedded corollaries to the primary hypothesis; that childhood family structure should be less consequential for African Americans, and that both African American and white families should have similar effects with regard to educational attainment. Data from this research does not support the assumption that childhood family structure is less consequential for African Americans. If this theory were empirically true, it would be evidenced by the results from the t-tests. That is, the majority oft-tests would have to be significant and negative. Of all the t-tests, only two fit this standard. Among African American women, living in a single mother family, total years of education and high school completion are moderately (p<. 05) significant in the negative direction. Rather than being seen as ev~ence of theory " support, these two findings should be considered anomalies or outlier data. There has been a lot of research and discussion about the positive aspects of extended kin and fictive kin networks among African American families, but this does not seem to be the case with regard to educational attainment. Finally, the corollary predicting similar effects with regard to childhood family structure and long-term educational attainment is partially supported by the data of this research, but the results warrant further discussion and investigation. To say that childhood family structure has a similar effect on the educational attainment of African Americans and whites is not to say there are not any racial differences, as evidenced by the substantial race gap in educational attainment. This suggests that although family structure seems to have little to no effect with regards to future educational attainment, 8·6 "something" else is to blame. I suggest that the "something" else is a structural, as opposed to cultural, in nature. Duncan's (1968) research illuminates this point. The effects of socioeconomic origin are incredibly important to this story, as are the effects of institutional racism. The difference between the relationship of "family head was not employed" and total years of education, as well as high school completion, was highly significant and positive for African American men and women. That is, it is more harmful to the long-term education of African Americans if their family head was not employed. Challenging the common sense hypothesis that family structure is more consequential for African Americans, and supporting the corollary that the effects of ~ " childhood family structure are similar for both whites and African Americans goes a long way towards critiquing Moynihan's (1965) arguments. The position of the Moynihan Report of 1965, as well as the commonly held conventional wisdom, is more of a cultural myth (Battle and Bennett 1997), and empirical data fails to support it. Trends in African American communities toward higher rates of single mother families do not in and of themselves associate with lower levels of educational attainment. Many other factors, namely socioeconomic ones, are important. Battle and Bennett assert that, "The tendency has been to worry about the supposedly self-defeating behaviors of the Black poor, not poverty itself' (1997:151). Based on the evidence and data provided in this chapter, the major finding, which challenges common sense notions about family and race is that there are little to no racial or gender differences based on childhood family structure in terms of overall educational 87 attainment (total number of years), entry into college, or college completion. This speaks both to inaccurate public discourse that assumes eliminating fatherlessness will likewise eliminate low levels of educational attainment, as well as to the importance of a family's socioeconomic background. What is most important to African American boys (and all children) is not simply to be living in a household that is headed by a man, but to live in a household that has enough economic resources (McLanahan 1985) and employed parents (Battle 1998b ). Additionally, issues surrounding structural and institutional racism must be addressed. The race gap in education in real, but the cultural explanations that are often relied upon, namely those relating to family structure and fatherlessness, are empirically ~ false. Likewise, they are being used to mask racism that is persistent irtd embedded within structures and institutions. This chapter has shown that the effects of family structure are similar for African Americans and whites, and that fatherlessness has little to do with a child's long-term educational attainment. These two findings are important because they speak directly to contemporary family discourse issues. Instead of lamenting the demise of the traditional family, these findings allow policy makers and social scientists to move beyond simplistic definitions of family, as well as simplistic cause and effect models dealing with family. It is not enough to say childhood family structure leads to educational attainment, without a deep investigation of other dimensions of family background. Likewise, it is not reasonable to accept the negative discourse surrounding African American family life. The "pathology of matriarchy" position that suggests that the lack of a man in the home is detrimental for African American children, especially sons, is not supported by this empirical research. 88 This chapter has both answered questions and raised new ones. Having shown that there are few differences between African Americans and whites concerning childhood family structure and long-term educational attainment, the next logical step is to determine what the differences are. In the following chapter, I utilize the birth cohort variable to investigate if (and in what ways) the effect of childhood family structure on educational attainment has changed over time for African Americans and whites. 89 Chapter 4 - Changes of Time: Is the Family Declining in Significance? The analysis for the previous chapter utilized the pooled data set in its entirety. The main findings of the previous chapter illustrated that the outcomes in long-term educational attainment as determined by childhood family structure are largely similar for whites and African Americans. That is the positive (and/or negative) effects relating to family background are generally comparable across racial, as well as gender, lines. As noted in the previous chapter, the next logical step is to explore how the patterns of race, childhood family structure, and educational attainment have changed or remained stable over time. In addition to exploring the major patterns of race, childhood family structure, ~ and educational attainment as a time trend analysis, this chapter explores the corollary supposition that family background effects have declined over time. As a time trend analysis, this chapter focuses on the following broad research question: In what ways has the relationship between childhood family structure and long- term educational attainment for whites and African Americans changed over time? An embedded question relates to the significance of family background influences on education attainment. Is the family declining in significance? · Current literature dealing with the idea of change and/or stability over time is inconsistent, some suggesting stability, some change, and others a mixture of the two. For the most part, this current literature does not involve or provide a socio-historical perspective. That is much of the current literature fails to theorize the ways in which macro-level social and historical events shape the micro-level family processes and lives 90 of individuals. I suggest that this is an important addition to further understanding the relationship between childhood family structure and long-term educational attainment. Given the addition of a socio-historical perspective, the original research question "Are family background effects declining over time?" expands to "What explains the change (decline) in family background effects over time with respect to educational attainment?" I propose public policy as one means of answering this more extensive and complex question. Public policy, created in areas of judicial precedent, legal statute, congressional law, and executive order, have very specific socio-historical underpinnings. I suggest that public policy be considered as the legal manifestation of the ideologies of their socio-historical period. Additionally, it is within this time trend analysis that the ~ " seemingly "timeless" issue of institutional and structural racism pervades. These specific questions and issues will be more fully explored and discussed in Chapter 5. Changes Over Time: Family Background and Education Some literature regarding childhood family structure and long-term educational attainment suggest that family background effects have been declining in importance over time for both African Americans and whites (Mare 1980; Kuo and Hauser 1995). One study found that the negative effects of divorce are actually more damaging in recent cohorts (Evans, et al. 1998). Others propose that the relationship between childhood family structure and educational attainment patterns has remained relatively stable (Mare 1981; Biblarz and Raftery 1999). Still others find a mix of change and stability over time (Hauser and Featherman 1976). These inconsistent results, as well as their overall lack of a socio-historical perspective illustrate the need for further investigation. 91 To begin their recent longitudinal study of generations, Bengtson, Biblarz, and Roberts pose the question, "Why is it important to examine family influence and transmission processes across generations?" (2002:2). A variety of contemporary trends and demographic shifts within families, as well as society as a whole, such as "economic uncertainty, marital instability, an array of family forms, and conflicting cultural values representing individualism and collectivism" are cited as reasons for the continued importance of research in the area of how families matter with regard to future outcomes for children (Bengtson et al 2002:2). Although a definitive account of how the effects of family background may (or may not) be changing is still open to discussion, what is virtually unchallengeable is the '- " idea that the demography of American families themselves are changing a great deal, and in many different ways. In their meta-analysis of the changing demography of American families, Teachman, Tedrow, and Crowder state, "The American family has never been static" (2000:1234). Additionally, American families have always differed in form and function along racial and socioeconomic lines. How Families and Family Structures Have Changed Over Time Since the end of World War II, there has been a steady decline in the rate of first marriage (Teachman et al 2000). In addition, the rate of divorce has seen a "slow, but steady increase" (Teachman et al2000:1235). The increase in the rate of divorce was especially sharp in the 1970's, but has flattened in recent years (Teachman et al2000). The patterns of marriage and divorce mirror those occurring in other Western, industrialized nations. 92 There are also racial differences in rates of marriage and divorce. In the period between 1975 and 1998, there was a 32% decline in marriage for both white and African American women aged 20-24 (Teachman et al 2000). The result of this decline is more striking for white women, though, who in 1975 had a much higher probability of marriage. In terms of divorce, rates increase steadily for both whites and African Americans between 1975 and 1990 (Teachman et al2000). Between 1975 and 1985, white women aged 40-44 saw a particularly large rise in divorce (from 20% to 32%); but a slowing effect (from 32% to 35%) from 1985 to 1990 (Teachman et al2000). For African American women, the rise has been slightly steadier from just under 30% in 1975 to 45% in 1990 (Teachman et al2000). " Of importance regarding these demographic trends are the ways in which these family changes relate to changes in family efficiency and childhood outcomes, such as well being, occupational attainment, and educational attainment. Divorce has become more normalized in the past few decades; so one assumption is that family disruption is less significant in determining childhood outcomes. The logical following of this assumption is that for African American children, family effects would be even less significant, as "alternative" family arrangements are even more normalized and evidenced than for whites. This suggests that the declining aspect of family influence with regard to future educational and occupational attainment is more pronounced for African Americans. In addition to increasing rates of divorce, and its subsequent normalization, is the growing trend of full-time employment of mothers of young children (Bengtson et al 93 2002). These trends, coupled with changes in multigenerational family structures, such as longer life expectancy and decreased fertility suggest changing roles for families (Bengtson et al 2002). What are the roles and functions of families? How have those roles changed or remained stable over the years? Is the family declining in significance with regard to transmission of future educational and occupational attainment? And if so, what is taking its place? Stability Over Time In Family Background Effects Mare (1981) found that the effects of family background on education were stable for cohorts of white men during the first half of the 20th century. The relationship between educational stratification and socioeconomic origins was constant and predictable based on family background (Mare 1981 ). Social science research in the United States indicates a strong and stable pattern of stratification with regard to family background dimensions and schooling (Mare 1981 ). This is largely related to the institutionalized nature of class (and I would argue race). Mare (1981) contends that the stability of educational stratification and the association between socioeconomic background and grade progression offset each other, potentially concealing important aspects of social change. That is, there is a general trend for cohorts to acquire more education than those preceding them. There is a possibility that this masks aspects of consistency across birth cohorts. Mare (1981) concluded that school progression over cohorts depends on, but is by and large stabilized by, family background variables, despite increasing educational opportunities. This follows the above contention that although there is always general progress, a sort of "the rising tide lifts all ships" idea, 94 there is still persistent stratification with regard to family background. Similarly, although there are increasing educational opportunities over time, the impact of social stratification continues to block certain groups from attaining higher levels of education, and thereby socioeconomic status. Mare (1981 :72) maintains that although "educational stratification with respect to socioeconomic origins appears stable, the reason for stability in the educational attainment process are largely unknown". Mare (1981:73) asks, "How should discrepant findings be interpreted in light of a broader understanding of stability and change in social stratification?". There is a pattern of stability and consistency here that Mare and others are unable to situate. I assert that persistent and institutionalize~ racism and classism be viewed as reasons for this "unknown". In addition to research dealing with how socioeconomic aspects of family background predict future outcomes is the research dealing with the ways in which childhood family arrangement predicts future outcomes. In a more recent study, Biblarz and Raftery's (1999) findings, consistent with an evolutionary view of parental investment, showed that the effect of "alternative" family structures on educational attainment and socioeconomic success have been constant over the last 30 years. Changes Over Time In Family Background Effects Mare's (1980) study of family background dimensions (father's education, mother's education, household income, father's occupational status, number of siblings, and family structure) and grade progression in white men found that the effects of parental income decline significantly between elementary school and college. Mare 95 (1980) notes that one of the primary limitations of this analysis is that intervening or mediating variables are not taken into account. Although family background variables affect educational decisions, the predictive ability of family background variables decreases over time and through specific progressive educational transitions, such a high school graduation, entry into college, and college completion (Mare 1980). Mare (1980:300) states, "Even relatively small social background effects on the decision to attend college given high school graduation are consistent with large changes in the means of the background variables". That is, family background variables matter and affect educational attainment. Over time, the predictive ability of social origins and family background ~ " dimensions declines with regard to overall years of education as well as educational transitions from one level of schooling to the next (Mare 1980). Mare (1980:302) concludes, "To explain the general pattern of effects, therefore, it is largely unnecessary to argue the special relevance of socioeconomic background variables to particular school transitions". If family background is not an explanation of school transition differentials, what is? What else predicts the decline in family effects? Again, I propose there is a need for a socio-historical perspective. If micro-level processes are decreasing in their effects, the assumption is that macro-level processes are increasing. In a study of white and African American brothers, Kuo and Hauser (1995) found that while family background accounts for nearly half of the variance in educational attainment, its effects are lower for younger brothers, suggesting change over time. Kuo 96 and Hauser (1995) find that the effects of family background on the educational attainment of white and African American men to be declining. Additionally, Kuo and Hauser (1995) find that "alternative" family structures and larger numbers of siblings affect whites more than African Americans. This finding is- consistent with earlier theory work from Chapter 3 that suggests family diversity is normative (and with less negative effects) for African Americans. Family type is "not associated with substantial differences in the effects of measured background variables on men's educational attainment" (Kuo and Hauser 1995:156). Kuo and Hauser (1995) also suggest that the differentials in family effects for African American men who grew up during and after World War II, and those who grew up in earlier decades is related to '- the impact of massive migration of African Americans to urban center~ in the North. Here we see again that socio-historical events largely shape how individuals experience their lives. Bengtson, Biblarz, and Roberts (2002) note how changes in cultural values also influence the changing roles of families with regard to childhood outcomes. They refer to individualism and collectivism as a scale or continuum that "refers to the importance of personal self-fulfillment and individual advancement over collective (family and community) interests" (Bengtson et al2002:40). It is noted that since World War II, there has been a shift from more generalized social group, extended family, and community goals to individual based goals, including those that pertain mostly to one's nuclear family (Bengtson et al 2002). Bengtson, Biblarz, and Roberts find that within their longitudinal study, younger generations tended to be more individualistic than older generations (2002). 97 In addition to values along the individualism/collectivism scale are those specific to cultural values within families. In a previous section, I pose the following questions. What are the roles and functions of families? How have those roles changed or remained stable over the years? While there are some ways in which these values have remained stable, there are many more in which they have changed. In terms of the values that parents hold for their children, older generation parents were primarily concerned with issues like obedience and conformity (Bengtson et al 2002). Younger generation parents place a greater emphasis on individual autonomy and independence (Itengtson et al 2002). Stability and Change Over Time In Family Background Effects In a comparative study of white and African American men, Hauser and Featherman (1976) found a mixture of change and stability over time with regard to the effects of social background on educational attainment. The authors also suggest that the "educational experiences of successive birth cohorts reflect prevailing social conditions at the time they were growing up" (Hauser and Featherman 1976). This assumption coincides with my argument that socio-historical factors need to be addressed when exploring the effects of time over with regard to long-term educational attainment. Although Hauser and Featherman (1976) define there social conditions more in terms of demographic trends such as marriage rates and fertility, the underlying theory is consistent with a socio-historical perspective. 98 With regard to and "alternative" family structures and African Americans, Hauser and Feathennan (1976) found a decline in their negative effects, but relative stability when testing father's education, father's occupation. That is, the negative effects of family structure lessen over time for African Americans, but the effects of socioeconomic background, namely father's education and father's occupation remain consistent. Hauser and Feathennan (1976) find that although the persistence of family disruption clearly distinguishes the educational experience of African Americans from whites, over time there is a mitigating effect. Over time, the negative effect of family instability on educational attainment for African Americans declines to some degree (Hauser and Feathennan 1976). " Hauser and Feathennan (1976:106) find that there are "substantial inequalities of educational attainment which cannot be attributed to social background factors". Again, I suggest that these "unknowns" are largely related to the persistent and institutional nature of racism and race relations in the United States. To this end, Hauser and Feathennan (1976:109) state, "The changing influence of race on educational attainment is even more dramatic because net racial differences in the length of schooling have virtually disappeared among young men". An African American man born during World War I received 1.5 years less education than his white peer, but there were essentially no net racial differences for white and African American men born during the late depression years and World War II (Hauser and Feathennan 1976). Hauser and F eathennan ( 197 6) are correct, though, to acknowledge that this is not to suggest that whites and African Americans obtained the same amount of education, but 99 that the observed differences could be explained in terms of the other social disadvantages of African Americans. In this sense, there is a strong indicator that the other social disadvantages of African Americans relate fundamentally to the features and consequences of racism. In a more recent study, Biblarz, Bengtson, and Bucur (1996) also find a combination of change and stability over time. Utilizing data from the Longitudinal Study of Generations, Biblarz et al (1996) explore patterns of social mobility among three generations within same family groups. Biblarz et al (1996) find that each successive generation obtains higher occupational status than the previous, but the rate of increase slows. Additionally, there is a weakening effect in the transmission of~socioeconomic ... status between parents and children (Biblarz et al 1996). These are interesting, albeit seemingly contradictory, findings. On the one hand, there is an overall increase (but gradual flattening) of occupational status. And on the other hand, there is a suggestion of declining family transmission of social position. The first finding suggests an increase in the effects of macro-level processes, as well as the "rising tide" theory. The second suggests a weakening effect for micro-level family processes. Both of these findings fit into the overall scope of this research ... as family processes decline in importance, structural and micro-level processes increase. Bengtson, Biblarz, and Roberts sum this idea by stating "The image that emerges is one of subsequent generations being carried to their socioeconomic destinations by a wave of larger societal change in opportunity for higher education, expansion of higher status occupations, and diminution of manual work" (2002:53). 100 It has been shown that explaining the general pattern of effects relies less and less on family background variables. For this reason, in addition to understanding the declining effect of family background on educational attainment, it is important to understand what else may be predicting the decline. The question then is not simply, "Are family background effects decreasing over time?'' but "What explains the decline of family background effects?" To answer this more interesting question, I tum to a socio- historical perspective because the educational experiences of different birth cohorts strongly reflect the prevailing socio-historical conditions of the time. Public policy is an ever-changing set of ideologies and practical outcomes that both shape and react to specific socio-historical events. Similarly, there are substantial inequa~ties, which are " largely race based, in schooling that cannot be attributed to family background variables. Hypotheses Hl: Over time, the effects of childhood family structure on long-term educational attainment will decline. This first hypothesis follows the above-summarized research suggesting that family background effects are declining over time. While still somewhat predictive, the above research suggests that family background dimensions only account for a small percentage of educational differentials. Outcomes such as educational attainment and occupational status are somewhat determined by micro-level family processes, but the research has indicated a shifting away from these variables over time. As the importance of micro-level family processes weaken, the assumption is that macro-level processes will strengthen in importance. In particular, a socio-historical perspective is significant in 101 the ways that it illuminates changes in micro-level and macro-level processes over time for successive birth cohorts. H2: Over time, the effects of childhood family structure on long-term educational attainment will decline more for African Americans than whites. Following the first hypothesis that family background effects have weakened over time is the challenging corollary that they have weakened even more so for African Americans than whites. This hypothesis relates to the literature presented in Chapter 3 regarding the normativity of "alternative" family structures. That is, since "alternative" family structures have been more evidenced and therefore more normalized for African American families, it should follow that the decline in family effects will be more pronounced. The other side of this is that as micro-level processes decline, macro-level processes will strengthen to an even greater degree for African Americans than whites. Results Descriptive Statistics At the center of this chapter is the variable of time, as indicated by the respondent's birth cohort. Birth cohort is used as the means of providing a time trend analysis for the relationships first introduced in Chapter 3. The means, as well as percentages and N' s, where appropriate, of both the independent and dependent variables used in these analyses are provided in Appendix A (whites) and Appendix B (African Americans). Of particular interest in Appendices A and B is the relative consistency of family type distribution for both whites and African Americans born in the 1910's 102 through the 1950's. There is not a big change for either group until the birth cohort of the 1960's. For whites born in this decade, there was a decrease from the previous average of 84% of all white children living with two-biological parents to 75%. The bulk of this change resulted from an increase in the number of single mother headed families. Likewise, there is a steady increase in the number of white mother/stepfather headed families for the entire period (1910's: 3%, 1920's: 4%, 1930's: 5%, 1940's: 6%, 1950's: 7%, and 1960's: 9%). This data is consistent with marriage, divorce, and remarriage patterns over the past decades. In addition, there is a constant increase in overall education for white children from all family types until the 1960's birth cohort. This is ~ " likely a function of the relative size of this birth cohort decade, as parameter estimates are similar among other decades. Similar to the changing family patterns of whites born in the 1910's to the 1950's, is that of African Americans. During the 1910's through 1950's, an average of65% of African American children lived in families headed by two-biological parents. For African Americans born in the 1960's, only 50% reported living in two-biological parent families. The decrease in two-biological parent headed families is mainly accounted for by the increase in single mother headed families, which rose from an average of 20% during the 1910's through 1950's to 35% in the 1960's. Looking at the total sample for each birth decade gives an overall picture of the racial gaps in educational attainment. Whites born in the 1910's had an average of 11.18 years of education, as compared to 8.55 years for their African American counterparts, 103 for a total difference of 2.63 years. The gap lessens for each subsequent decade, but remains, even for those born in the 1960's. Whites born in the 1960's earned an average of 13.39 years of education, while African Americans only earned an average of 12.84 years. Even for those born in the 1960's, there is a racial gap of just over half a year of total education that favors whites. Examining these birth cohort and racial differences in terms of family structure provides another way of looking at the data. For whites, the lowest average number of years of education is 1 0.25, occurring for respondents from the 1910's, who reported living in either single mother or mother/stepfather families. This is in sharp contrast to African Americans born in the 1910's who lived in single mother headed families only averaging 7.68 years of " " education. Whites from all family types in the 1940's averaged at least a high school education, with many groups being close to this significant marker by the 1920's. For African Americans, this marker of high school did not take place across all family types until the 1950's. Examining these means indicates that something other than family structure is at work when predicting future educational attainment. The fact that the base mean years of education are so disparate between whites and African Americans points to race, not family structure as a primary factor. I suggest that it is not simply race per se, but historical and persistent racism, that is at the root of this difference. In addition to the context-oriented descriptive statistics (see Appendices A and B) are the following figures and results that directly address the two hypotheses by showing the changing effects of family structure on long-term educational attainment for whites and African Americans. What we see is a mixture of results that both confirm and reject 104 the two hypotheses. The first group of figures illustrates how family background differences (two-biological parent families and alternative families) have changed over time with regard to long-term education. The second group of figures shows long-term education differences between whites and African Americans over time. The final figures combine the two dimensions of race and family background with respect to long-term education. Family Background and Education Over Time Figures 4.1 - 4.4 show the associations over time between long-term education and childhood family structure (two-biological parent families and alternative families). 4 Figure 4.1 shows the mean total years of education for each birth cohort. High school completion is the outcome of interest for Figure 4.2. The outcome variable for Figure 4.3 is the probability of college entry (given high school completion). The outcome variable for Figure 4.4 is the probability of college graduation (given college entry). 5 Figure 4.1 illustrates a continual increase, but gradual flattening, in total years of education for respondents from both two-biological parent families and alternative families. This finding fits into the "rising tide" theory, which suggests overall increases in educational attainment and occupational status over time for newer birth cohorts. Of course it is important to note that there remains a fairly consistent gap between those 4 Note that alternative families include single mother headed families, stepfamilies, and single father headed families. 5 In addition to the figures provided in the body, see Appendix C and Appendix D for tables investigating further variables, namely socioeconomic dimensions (family head's occupational status and unemployment status) and "distance from mother". - ~ - 0 - = .... '-0 ., '<t :: ~ 0 0\ uoqn:mpg JO SJil;J A Ull;JW 105 - £L6l - OL6l L96l V96l !96! 8S6! SS6! C:S6! 6v6t 9v6t £t>6! Ot>6! t:: 0 - L£6! ..c: 0 u v£6t "€ l£6! iii 8C:6! _ SC:6! ll6l 6!6! 9!6! - £!6! 0!6! - L06l v06t !06! 868! 00 r- '-0 106 from two-biological parent families and alternative families, that shrinks slightly for two- biological parent families and alternative families is real, but I suggest it be explained not so much as a facet of childhood family structure itself, but relating to the socioeconomic issues facing alternative families, namely single parent families. 6 The overall results relating to total years of education are further analyzed through the educational transitions between high school graduation and college graduation. The generalized pattern of increased educational attainment for all respondents is challenged. The probability of high school graduation is examined in Figure 4.2. There are two important patterns here to notice. First is the consistent gap between those from two- biological parent families and alternative families. Second is the actuat data line that '>. increases sharply from the 1890's until the 1950's, then begins a decline in the 1960's that is maintained by those from 1970's birth cohorts. The gap is consistent with other findings; again suggesting factors other than simply one's childhood family structure, but that there is a decline in high school graduation for both groups suggests something more structural or institutional within the educational system itself that fewer students are graduating from high school. The following two figures that illustrate college entry and college graduation are markedly different with respect to the consistent gap between the groups seen in the two previous figures. 6 In terms of overall years of education for both African Americans and whites, socioeconomic dimensions are highly significant (see Appendix C and Appendix D). In each of the models, across all of the birth cohorts, family head's occupational status and unemployment status had a high level of significance for predicting the respondents' total years of educational attainment whereas childhood family structure did not. 0.9 J ~8 ~ g ~7 1 0.6 ~ ~05 ~M . £ ] ~3 ~ ~ ~2 0.1 0 00 0 .... ,_ 0 .., "' 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ "' ~ Figure 4.2 Family Background Differences in High School Graduation --1r- Two Biological Parent Family -D- Alternative Family -- Poly. (Alternative Family) -- Poly. (Two Biological Parent Family) "' "' N "' 00 ;:;; .... ,_ 0 .., "' "' N "' 00 ::0 .... ,_ 0 .., N "' N .., .., .... .... .... .... "' "' "' "' "' ,_ ,_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Birth Cohort ....... 0 -...) 0.9 0.8 g t: 0.7 ~ ~ 0.6 :a ~ 0.5 0 & 0.4 ~ .0 8 ~ 0.2 0.1 0 00 "' 00 Figure 4.3, Family Background Differences in College Entry V ~ 0 M ~ ~ N ~ 00 0 0 0 - - - - N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - - .... ..., ..., "' "' r- 0 ..., .... "' "' Birth Cohort M ~ ~ N ~ 00 - V ~ 0 M v v v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -lie- Two Biological Parent Family -D- Alternative Family --Poly. (Two Biological Parent Family) --Poly. (Alternative Family) ....... 0 00 109 Figure 4.3 shows the family background differences in probability of college entry for the birth cohorts. Those from two-biological parent families saw a significant, linear, and steep increase in probability (from just under 20% to roughly 65%) between the 1890's and 1970's. Additionally, those from alternative families saw an increase from about 15% to just above than 40%. Interesting here is that for alternative families there is a flattening then slight decrease over the last birth cohorts. The gap between the two groups is constant until this point then widens with two-biological parent families faring even better. It is important to note here, though, the few outliers (i.e. 1965, alternative families; and 1969, two-biological parent families) in the later birth cohorts that may be creating "noise" and an unjustifiably large discrepancy in the probabiij_ty of ~ollege entry. Figure 4.4 shows the increase in probability of college graduation for both two- biological parent families (10% to 33%) and alternative families (6% to 18%) between the 1890's and 1970's. 7 Both groups experience a marked increase, but similar to the results for college entry, the gap widens at the end of the birth cohort scale, favoring two- biological parent families. Interesting, though, is that although the final probabilities seem to greatly favor two-biological parent families, both groups experience an overall increase of roughly 30% from the earliest birth cohorts to the latest. The results of these figures regarding the effects of family background on long- term education do not directly support or refute the family decline hypothesis. There is 7 Note the scale in Figure 4.4 that begins at 0 and ends at 0.5 whereas the previous two utilized the entire scale from 0 to 1. The nature of the outcomes necessitated a shrinking of the scale to be able to visualize the changes occurring over the birth cohorts. Figure 4.4, Family Background Differences in College Graduation 0 .5.-------------------------------------------------------------------------~ 0.45 g 0.4 ·~ .g 0.35 ~ r;; 0.3 ~ 8 0.25 .... 0 -~ 0.2 l'::j~Rfu~ ~~ ~ ~rfr'J 0.05 0 00 0 '<t r- 0 M '0 "' "' 01) 00 ;;:; '<t r- 0 M '0 "' "' 01) 00 ;o '<t r- 0 M "' 0 0 "' "' "' M M '<t '<t '<t '<t 01) 01) 01) '0 '0 r- r- ~ ~ ~ ~ "' "' "' "' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Birth Cohort --tr- Two Biological Parent Family -D- Alternative Family --Poly. (Two Biological Parent Family) --Poly. (Alternative Family) - - 0 111 certainly evidence of change over time in educational attainment, with nearly all indicators showing an increase in education, but the exact ways in which childhood family structure relates to this increase is yet unclear. Certainly the socioeconomic issues of single parent families must be taken into account. As well, the generalized pattern of increased educational attainment over time is well contained within the "rising tide" explanation that regardless of specific family effects, future generations will succeed at higher levels of education and occupation. In addition to explanations dealing with socioeconomic dimensions, is the necessity to investigate race as another important factor in determining educational attainment. How does race affect the relationship between education and family? How has this relationship changed over time? ~ Race and Education Over Time In terms of total years of education (Figure 4.5), we see a very similar pattern for whites and African Americans over time. Both racial groups see an increase in total years of education from the earliest birth cohorts to the latest, but with a gradual slowing and flattening beginning in the 1960's. In addition, it is notable that the race gap decreases, but is still apparent even in the latest birth cohorts. The overall increase in total years for African Americans is more significant, though, rising from about 6 years for the earliest birth cohort to about 12 years in the latest birth cohorts. Like my suggestion that family background itself should not be seen as the primary factor in the gap between two-biological parent families and alternative families, - ~ ... 0 ~ = .... ~ :! ~ ::: 00 DO!lll:)"P3 JO Sll!O A Ul!OW 112 OL61 L961 1961 8>61 >>61 C:>61 61>61 91>61 £1>61 01>61 t L£61 0 .g u t£61 :E CCI 1£61 81:61 C:C:61 6161 9161 £161 0161 L061 1>061 1061 8681 '0 .... 113 but rather the deeper socioeconomic issues facing single parent families, I suggest that race itself not be seen as the determining factor in the race gap in education, but the structural and institutional factors relating to race and racism. Of all the figures dealing with race and long-term education the most interesting is the one that illustrates the probability of high school graduation (Figure 4.6). In all of the other figures, there is a notable race gap that extends from the earliest to the latest birth cohorts, but in Figure 4.6, this is not the case. High school graduation is considered on the main markers for educational success, and in Figure 4.6, we see are near convergence in the latest birth cohorts, with both African Americans and whites seeing a close to 85% probability of high school graduation. Is this evidence of a true decrease in the race gap ... or has high school graduation become more of a standard? Based on the race gap that is evident in all other figures, it is highly unlikely that this convergence can be seen as an indicator of racial equality in education, but more of a generalized "changes over time" factor. Whereas high school graduation was rare, and far from the norm for the earlier birth cohorts, changes in industrialization, as well as laws for compulsory education, have created for later birth cohorts more of a standard and an expectation that high school graduation is an attainable educational goal. Figure 4. 7 illustrates race differences with regard to college entry. Figure 4. 7 is similar to Figure 4.5 in that we see a consistent increase in probability for college entry, but a concurrent race gap. The gap is consistent, and almost uniform from the earliest to latest birth cohorts. Figure 4.8 illustrates race differences with regard to college 0 :: 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 - 1908 1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 tl:l 1928 !}: 1930 ("} g. 1932 0 ::l 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 Pll Probability of High School Graduation 0 ;,., 0 ... 0 :,. 0 v. 0 "' I I ? + ~ ~ ;I> ~ ";< ':<= ~ ~· --- ~ 0 ;I> ~ ~ ;:;· §'" § ~ g, §'" ~ g_ ! 0 0 ~ Oo 0 ;, i'!rj ~· ~ ,. ~=-- ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ = ~ ~ [I> .... = = i 00 ~ =- 0 0 - ~ ., ~ Q. = ~ ..... .... 0 = 115 i " ·c " Iii s " < " ii ~Iii ~ ~ ~ .9 ~ '-:' $ ~;,6~~ < a:. a:. + ~ I I £L61 OL61 ~ - = ~ 1>961 ~ b.() ~ - - Q u = »61 .... r<'l ~ ~ = 61>61 ~ .... = 91>61 .... ~ ~ ~ 01>61 ~ 1: ~ L£61 0 ..c ~ 0 u -.:t 1>£61 ~ ~ ~ .... 1£61 ~ 8l61 .... ~ )l61 ll61 9161 £161 0161 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M N 0 d d d d d d d d d ArlU::J: O!IOIJOJ JO AllJ!qBqOJd 116 U61 = Q .... .... ~ = "0 ~ J.. ~ ~ ell ~ 17S61 - - Q u 1S61 = . ... 81761 <ll ~ ~ S1761 = ~ J.. Z176 1 = .... 6£61 1:: ~ 0 "8 ~ 9£61 u ~ :E ~ ~ ££61 Ol ~ ~ 0£61 ~ J.. LZ61 = ell .... 17Z61 ~ 1Z61 8161 S161 Z161 6061 9061 0061 "' "' ..,. "' M "' "'l ~ "' 0 0 ..,. 0 M 0 "' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 uoJJ•npruo ~ll~no:) JO A:lmq•qoJd 117 graduation. 8 Both whites and African Americans from the earliest birth cohorts have about a 10% probability of college graduation. From this point, though, whites experience an increase, and gradual flattening by the latest birth cohorts, ending in a college graduation probability of about 30%. African Americans, on the other hand, experience a number of peaks and valleys over the birth cohorts, finally resting at a probability of 14%. It is very important to note here that the number of African American respondents represented in this educational transition was substantially lower than for whites, and the subsequent results should be viewed with extreme caution. Regardless of this, though, is the obvious race gap that existed in the early birth cohorts, and endures to the final birth cohorts. " A primary focus of this chapter is to more fully understand how the relationships of race, childhood family structure, and long-term educational attainment have changed over the decades. The next section connects the information provided in the previous two, investigating these three factors together. Family Background, Race, and Education Over Time Figures 4.9 and 4.10 illustrate the total years of education for whites and African Americans from two-biological parent families and alternative families. The graphs are consistent with the major finding from Chapter 3 that there are little to no racial differences with regard to childhood family structure and long-term education. In Figure 4.9, we see a race gap, but the gap decreases considerably from the earliest to middle 8 Note the scale in Figure 4.8 that begins at 0 and ends at 0.5 whereas the previous two utilized the entire scale from 0 to 1. The nature of the outcomes necessitated a shrinking of the scale to be able to visualize the changes occurring over the birth cohorts. 118 birth cohorts. By the latest birth cohorts, both whites and African Americans see a flattening effect. This graph ties into the "rising tide" theory, but also to the growing opportunity structure for African Americans. There remains a race gap, but like other findings, the overall increase from the earliest birth cohort ( 6 years) to the latest birth cohort ( 11 years) is impressive, considering that for whites the increase was from just under 10 years to 12 years. Figure 4.10 is the most significant figure of this chapter. It shows that by the birth cohorts of the 1960's and 1970's that for alternative families there is virtually no difference in total years of education for whites and African Americans. This bolsters the finding from Chapter 3 that family effects are no more significant for African Americans ~ '- than whites. In addition, both of these figures illustrate the notion of a "rising tide". Figure 4.11 combines the information from Figures 4.9 and 4.1 0, showing more clearly the family effects for whites and African Americans. There is a growing inequality gap in educational attainment by family structure among whites in the most recent birth cohorts, but consistency, and even a decline in significance for African Americans. In addition, this figure shows the convergence in educational attainment between whites from alternative families and African Americans from two-biological parent families. This illustrates the finding that while family structure is declining in significance for African Americans; it continues to be important for whites. Again, it is important to note that although there are differences in outcomes between two-biological parent family structures and alternative family structures, Figure 4.9, Total Years of Education by Race for Two-Biological Parent Families 16 ~--------------------------------------------------------------. 14 .::: 0 -~ (.) ::s ---tr- White "0 ~ -o- African American ..... ~ 10 -Poly. (White) a ., -Poly. (African American) ;:... § ., 8 :2 6 4 00 N 1.0 0 '<!" 00 N 1.0 0 '<!" 00 N 1.0 0 '<!" 00 N 1.0 0 0\ 0 0 ...... ...... - N N M M M '<!" '<!" .,., .,., .,., 1.0 1.0 ,..... 00 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ ..... ...... ..... Birth Cohort ........ ........ "" Figure 4.10, Total Years of Education by Race for Alternative Families 16 .-------------------------------------------------------------. 14 1::: -~ 12 ~ ~~::A=iooo I (.) ::1 "0 w ...... ;;: 10 -Poly. (White) ~ 1-Poly. (African American) I .., >- § .., 8 ~ 6 4 00 N '-0 0 -.:!" 00 N '-0 0 -.:!" 00 N '-0 0 -.:!" 00 N '-0 0 0'> 0 0 - - N N ..., ..., ..., -.:!" -.:!" "' "' "' '-0 '-0 r- 00 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> a-. 0'> 0'> 0'> a-. a-. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Birth Cohort ...... N 0 c 0 · = "' u ::l ., iJ.l ..... 0 "' a "' >- la "' ::E Figure 4.11, Family Background Differences in Total Years of Education by Race 16~----------------------------------------------------------~ 14 12 10 8 6 4 00 N \0 0 .... 00 N \0 0 .... "' 0 0 N N ..., ..., 00 "' "' "' "' "' ~ ~ ~ ~ - - 00 N \0 0 .... 00 ..., .... .... .,.. .,.. .,.. ~ ~ ~ "' ~ "' - - N \0 0 "" \0 r- ~ ~ "' I -+- White, Tw~B~-;;gi~~ Parent Families -o- White, Alternative Families -0;- African American, Two-Biological Parent Families I ~ African American, Alternative Families --Poly. (White, Two-Biological Parent Families) -Poly. (White, Alternative Families) --Poly. (African American, Two-Biological Parent Families) -Poly. (African American, Alternative Families) ....... N ....... 122 attention needs to be drawn to the persistence of the race gap that is not explained by family structure. Likewise, in multivariate models not shown here, the race gap persists even with controls for socio-economic status, and family head's occupation and unemployment status. When examining how race and family interact with regard to long-term education, it is important to also note the ways in which gender alters this relationship. 9 The ways in which gender makes more complex the relationship between childhood family structure and education is inconsistent, particularly in the differences between whites and African Americans. For whites, gender (female=1) is negatively associated with overall educational ~ " attainment through the 1950's. Being a white women born in the 1960's was positively associated with long-term educational attainment, but not at statistically significant levels. That is, there really is no discernable difference between white men and white women born in this birth cohort decade. Interestingly, gender is highly significant for African Americans' total education, except for those born in the 1920's. This is particularly important, because being female in the 1910's provided the highest "boost" to one's overall education. In terms of high school completion, gender is positively significant for African Americans born in the 1950's. Gender is positively significant for whites, except for those born in the 1960's. Following a similar pattern, for African Americans, gender is positive and significant for those born in the 1950's and 1960's when used as a predictor 9 For full coefficient tables relating to gender, see Appendix C and Appendix D. 123 for college entry. By contrast, for whites, gender is negatively associated with college entry and college graduation for those born between the 1910's and the 1960's. In almost all cases, and at all levels of educational transition, African American women have higher educational attainment and greater probability of passing through the important educational transitions relating to high school graduation, college entry, and college graduation than African American men. This pattern differs from white women, who have a higher chance of high school completion than white men, but at the levels of college entry and college graduation, a significantly lower chance. The dimension of gender is extremely interesting in that there is such a different pattern here for whites and African Americans. Further testing and theory development are necessary to ~ appropriately flesh out these findings. Again, of primary interest in this chapter is how the relationships between race, childhood family structure, and long-term education have changed over time; and if family effects could be seen as declining. The effects of childhood family structure on overall educational attainment are relatively sporadic over the different birth cohort decades for African Americans, supporting the claim that the relative differences in overall education are more related to social factors, such socioeconomic origins, than to the specific type of family that one grows up in. While there are no distinctive patterns in the significance of childhood family structure on long-term educational attainment, it is interesting to note the differences between African Americans and whites. 1 ° For the most part, both in terms of total years of education, and the conditional transitions from high 1 ° For full coefficient tables relating to these interactions, see Appendix C and Appendix D. 124 school completion to college completion, the childhood family structure of whites is more significant than it is for African Americans. This is largely contrary to the body of knowledge that asserts severe negative associations related to family structure, particularly single mother headed families, for African Americans. In this sense, we can say that the family is declining in significance with regard to long-term education, and that this is particularly evidenced for African Americans, supporting both of the hypotheses of this chapter. So, if family effects, namely childhood family structure, are declining in importance, what are the primary determining factors in one's educational attainment? Discussion and Conclusion Chapter 4 has explored the major patterns of race, childhood f~ily structure, and educational attainment over time, as indicated by birth cohort. As a time trend analysis, this chapter focused on the following broad research questions: In what ways has the relationship between childhood family structure and long-term educational attainment for whites and African Americans changed over time? Is the family declining in significance? As noted earlier in the chapter, current literature dealing with the idea of change and/or stability over time is inconsistent, some suggesting stability, some change, and others a mixture of the two, but for the most part, failing to involve or provide a socio historical perspective. When viewing these questions through a socio-historicallens, the original research question "Are family background effects declining over time?" expands to "What explains the change (decline) in family background effects over time with 125 respect to educational attainment?" This research has shown a "decline" in the extent to which family background effects future educational attainment, but far from a complete removal. The noted decline is interesting in two specific ways. First, it is important to note the ways that the decline fits into the perspective of the "rising tide". Second, and perhaps more substantive in terms of future social and policy issues is the continuous race gap in educational attainment that is empirically unrelated to childhood family structure at all. The "Rising Tide" Theory The "rising tide" theory suggests that with future generations there is a natural increase in things like educational attainment and occupational status. This trend happens ~ irrespective of notable socio-historical events; and is simply a function of time. The idea is that each generation "does better" than the previous. For many decades the "rising tide" notion seems to be the case, as evidenced by increases in living standards, educational and occupational patterns, life expectancy, and overall health and well being. This theory is also evident in this research by the nearly uniform increases in educational attainment that each birth cohort experiences. Whereas family background dimensions had a great deal of influence over one's future in the past, this is lessening over time and through subsequent generations. That is not to say that families have lost their ability to transmit altogether, but that the encompassing determinacy that families of the past exhibited has declined. Concurrent to this decline is an increase in the ways that more public or social factors, like race and socioeconomic status, influence both 126 individuals and family units. Both race and socioeconomic status affect educational attainment in important ways. Cultural explanations, as well as those that "blame the victim" look to family structure itself as a way to explain the discrepancies in attainment. Instead of looking at the family itself, I suggest that a more useful model look to the outside social factors and issues that face families. For example, it is too simple to suggest that the education gap between two-biological parent families and alternative families is a result of the alternative family structure itself. It is much more complex than that, relating more so to the social problems that alternative families face, like lack of adequate day care, economic issues, and public disdain for being somehow "different" th~ the popularized ' view of the family. This type of explanation is also useful when trying to understand the persistent race gap in education. Race Gap In Educational Attainment Similar to the rationale that assumes family structure itself is at the center of an explanation of educational attainment is one that centers on an individuals race, without looking at the bigger social picture. That is, to suggest that the race gap in education is an individual or "cultural" issue fails to recognize the very real structural barriers facing people of color. A race gap persists not because there is something lacking culturally in communities of color, or that "they just don't care about education that much", but that structural and institutional racism pervades all facets of society. Racism is real and pervasive, and affects people of color in both subtle and overt ways. This idea will be more fully examined in Chapter 5. 127 Building on the finding of Chapter 3, the research from Chapter 4 shows the different effects of family structure on long-term educational attainment for African Americans and whites over time. Importantly, this research has shown that for African Americans, fatherlessness (or alternative family structures in general) has little to do empirically with a child's future educational attainment. What is significant, though, for both African Americans and whites are the socioeconomic dimensions that a child grows up with. Therefore, I suggest that it is within this specific area that future policy be addressed. It is important to create social change through public policy, but in many cases, public policy will be ineffective unless the underlying issues have been managed. In the case of educational attainment, the underlying factors are most 4_nportantly racism, and severe economic inequality. This chapter has both answered questions and raised new ones. Common sense and popular discourse tells us that policy, especially educational policy, should (and does) create social change. In the following conclusion chapter, I explore how structural racism and de facto segregation allow for the persistence of a race gap in long-term educational achievement. 128 Chapter 5 - Conclusions and Discussions Popular discourse and political and social rhetoric lead us to assume that childhood family structure-Did one grow up in a two-biological parent family or an alternative family structure?-is the major factor determining one's future educational attainment, as well as many other factors including marital stability, occupational status, socioeconomic status, and overall health and well being. In addition, it is assumed that one's racial background itself, particularly when coupled with childhood family structure, can determine long-term educational patterns. My research has shown that there are no racial or gender differences based on ~ childhood family structure in overall educational attainment, entry into college, or college completion. Similarly, these data indicate that this pattern has been consistent for nearly a century. These finding are not to alleviate or mask the very real and persistent racial gap in educational attainment, but to illuminate the fact that family structure in childhood, commonly believed to be the primary factor determining educational attainment, does not differ for those who are white or African American. It is important to understand the similar racial patterns of how childhood family structure affects educational attainment, as well as to understand the historical lack of change. I suggest that utmost significance be paid to theorizing an answer to the question, if childhood family structure does not account for the gap between white and African American educational attainment, what does? 129 In this concluding chapter, I discuss the historical and contemporary implications of racial segregation in education, paying special attention to the Brown vs. Board of Education decision of 1954. Next, I examine the current secular trends in achievement in American society utilizing the theoretical underpinnings of the "rising tide" idea; followed by a discussion oftlie "lack" of change over the past several decades. Finally, is an examination of issues relating to race and family. Particular attention will be paid to dealing with aspects of public policy and the persistent nature of racism in American society. Segregation in Education: Historical and Contemporary Educational segregation based on race has a long history in thaUnited States stemming from times when slavery was legal, and it was illegal to tea~h slaves to read or write. The United States has created a very "separate and unequal" system of education. Segregation in education comes in many forms, some subtler than others. While somewhat less observable in contemporary times, it is still quite obvious that education is two-tiered, with affluent white children and less-affluent African American children receiving vastly different educations. In addition, true segregation not only exists, but also seems to be increasing in severity. Using data from the NCES Common Core of Data for 2000-2001, we see that there is statistical evidence that in the 2000-2001 school year, whites were the most segregated racial group in the nation's public school systems. On average, white children who were enrolled in public schools, attended schools where 80% of the student body was also white (Frankenberg, Lee, and Orfield 2003). Also emerging is a "substantial 130 group of American schools that are virtually all non-white" (Frankenberg et al 2003 :5). These schools tend to be concentrated in areas that experience high levels of poverty, limited resources, and health problems (Frankenberg et al2003). During the 1990's, the number of African American students in schools where the majority of students were white had decreased by 13%, to a level lower than any year since 1968 (Frankenberg et al 2003). Brown vs. Board of Education With regard to race and education, the watershed event regarding segregation in education was the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision. Previous to the 1954 Brown decision, legal precedent with regard to race and racial segregMion was based on the 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson case. This case codified the "separate-bqt-equal" doctrine, stating that assuming similar accommodations were available to both whites and African Americans, it was legal to segregate. What were considered similar accommodations were hardly equal, and African Americans found themselves in public arenas that were vastly different and inferior to their white counterparts. In May of 1954, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, effectively striking down the separate-but-equal precedent previously created by the 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson decision, stating that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" (Bell1980:379). The primary ruling in Brown was that school children that were required on the basis of their race to attend separate schools were in effect being deprived of the equal protection assured under the Fourteenth Amendment. 131 Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren stated that separating school aged children solely on the basis of race "generates a feeling of inferiority as their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone" (Bell 1980:3 79). In the simplest terms, the watershed decision of 1954 meant that the use of rigid and arbitrary racial separation in public schools was no longer legal, thereby ending de jure segregation. In addition, it is important to note that the principles brought forth by the Brown decision quickly extended to other racial segregation laws. Expanding constitutional law and judicial review sustained the establishment of new federal statutes. 11 Brown II (1955) was the remedy and implementation phase of Brown I (1954). In ~ a move to appease everyone (those who advocated desegregation and those who favored continued segregation), the Supreme Court declared that the process of desegregation in public schools should happen with "all deliberate speed". Likewise, the Court, rejecting the petitioners' request for immediate relief and presenting a specific procedure for remedy, gave this task over to individual states, administrations, and school district authorities. In effect, this was the only course the Court could take. Chief Justice Warren mandated/coerced a unanimous decision in Brown I, when courtroom accounts and court documents suggest that this was not the actual vote of the nine justices. By wording the Brown II decision in the way it was, Chief Justice Warren was able to mollify both the unconvinced justices, as well as a nation that was hardly 11 The legal impact of Brown extended far beyond racial segregation in schools, and gradually came to be used as a mechanism to strike down other "differences in official treatment" laws that were based on sex, alienage, and residence (Cox 1987). ready to embrace true desegregation. In effect, segregation became illegal, but true desegregation never occurred. 132 Racial segregation in education became effectively illegal in 1954 with the Brown decision. De facto segregation, that is segregation that happens "in fact" and irrespective of legal precedent or statute, and the consequential educational differences between whites and African Americans, persists largely because of housing and community patterns. Why post-Brown is there still such a discrepancy in terms of educational equity between African Americans and whites? While it was thought that racial segregation was the primary issue to be dealt with and needing change in 1954, it is now seen as what it truly is ... only a symptom of a much larger and more insidious issue .. ·the fact that American society exists largely because of its maintenance of status quo white superiority. Racism and persistent ideologies of white supremacy prevent even the most binding legal documents and prec~dents from being effective. Legal rights to equality in education (and housing, and marriage, and the list goes on ... ), continue to remain unmet. It is one thing to open the door of opportunity, but it is certainly another to believe the door should be open, and act in "affirmative" ways to keep it open. I suggest that the educational race gap that is indicated by the findings in this research can be blamed on a persistence of systemic racism. Although there may be policies and rhetoric that affirm equality and the desire for equal opportunities in education, the fact remains that there are underlying ideologies of racism that make practical and significant change unattainable. Brown made illegal racial segregation in 133 public education, but de facto segregation persists within a social climate that continues to support racism. Race matters strongly where education is concerned, and desegregation has been a largely failed educational policy. This idea is discussed further in the final section of this chapter. Secular Trends and "Rising Tide" The face of American society is changing, particularly in the area of families and family structure. When discussing trends in families, discourse and research in family theory most often deal with two major issues-those relating to divorce and changing gender roles. In terms of divorce, since the end of World War II, there has been a steady decline in the rate of first marriage (Teachman et al 2000). In addition} the rate of divorce has seen a "slow, but steady increase" (Teachman et al2000:1235). 'fl\e increase in the rate of divorce was especially sharp in the 1970's, but has flattened in recent years (Teachman et al 2000). The patterns of marriage and divorce mirror those occurring in other Western, industrialized nations. The trends regarding divorce (and remarriage) create a situation where greater numbers of children are likely to live in family arrangements such as single parent families and stepfamilies. So again, while there is change, there is also a normalizing effect happening as the rates for divorce and remarriage flatten. Divorce and remarriage, at one time considered unusual, rare, and even embarrassing are now considered a fairly ordinary, and for the most part socially acceptable, event. In addition to increasing rates of divorce, and its subsequent normalization, is the growing trend of full-time employment of mothers of young children (Bengtson et al 134 2002). That is, there has been a decline in the "traditional" breadwinner father and homemaker mother model, with one favoring dual income earning families (Hernandez 1993). Mothers working in the public arena certainly means changes for families, but it is important not to see these changes as "deficits, nor do they represent a decline in the family or a heightened risk of harm to children" (Bengtson et al2002:52). These two primary trends in American family function and structure have implications for childhood outcomes. I suggest, though, that these implications are not negative, as evidenced by the results provided in this research. Changes have occurred in family structure, but not necessarily in terms of their ability to function in positive and meanin~ful ways. This evidence is in support of the family solidarity hypothesis, which proposes that families are adaptive, resilient, and able to maintain functionality even through changes in society. In addition, to understand this trend more fully, it is important to understand the idea of the "rising tide". The "Rising Tide" Theory The rising tide theory provides an image of "subsequent generations being carried to their socioeconomic destinations by a wave of larger societal change in opportunity for higher education, expansion of higher status occupations, and diminution of manual work" (Bengtson et al2002:53). That is, increases in long-term educational attainment, socioeconomic status, and occupational status have more to do with expanding opportunity structures, and less to do with micro-level processes, such as childhood family structure. 135 Bengtson, Biblarz, and Roberts (2002) parallel this argument by stating "There have been positive economic and societal trends across most of the twentieth century that we feel have tended to catapult new generations ahead of earlier ones in educational and occupational attainment and material well-being, irrespective of the processes of change that might be going on at the family level" (140). They cite a number of secular trends in American society that support this claim. There is a trend towards universal high school completion that has "created a pattern of heightened educational aspirations and achievement over successive generations" (Bengtson et al 2002:141 ). In addition, there has been an increase in real wages following World War II that has greatly increased the number of Americans who consider themselves middle class (Bengtso(l et al 2002). These secular trends, along with greater educational opportunities for women and people of color, have greatly expanded the opportunity structure, creating a "rising tide" effect that happens without consideration (for the most part) of one's family background dimensions. The "rising tide" theory is evidenced in this research both in terms of total years of education, and at each of the educational transitions. This trend holds true for both whites and African Americans, men and women, and for those from all types of childhood family structures. It is important to note, though, that although there is a definite trend for greater long-term educational attainment for each subsequent generation, there is also a slowing effect that happens for those from the latest the birth years. 136 This slowing down can also be seen as a flattening effect with regard to increases in long-term educational attainment. There is a steep rise in education between the earliest birth years (1900's to 1950's) that slows down, and even comes to a halt in some instances for those born in the 1960's ad 1970's. Why does this flattening effect take place? Who is most affected? Flattening at the latest birth years can be seen as resulting naturally. To some extent, there is only so far an increase in education can go. By the birth years of the 1960's and 1970's the majority of respondents had graduated high school, and nearly half had entered college. The educational standard f~r the past few decades is high school graduation. That is, high school graduation is an expected and celebrated educational ~ transition. While college entry and graduation is necessary for many occupations, it has yet to become the norm for most Americans. Most service industry and skilled labor jobs do not require education past high school, and given the service oriented nature of contemporary American society, it is easy to understand why high school, not college is the norm. Similarly, compulsory (and free public) education ends at high school. College entry and graduation are still luxuries that many Americans are unable to realize financially. It is interesting that the flattening effect seems to be consistent across racial, gender, and childhood family structure lines. Americans, in general, and regardless of their social backgrounds, are affected by the slowing of educational growth in nearly the same ways. This is important, because it suggests a convergence of educational opportunity and achievement, but it does not discount the gaps found both in terms of 137 childhood family structure (two-biological parent family and alternative family), and race (whites and African Americans). Although the patterns of growth and slowing are similar, there remains a gap between these two sets of groups. In the following section, I address the "lack" of change over time, setting the stage for a discussion regarding issues of race and family. Lack of Change Over Time Family theory is often constructed as a set of extremes, which roughly coincide with two challenging and polarized perspectives. On one hand is the family decline (Popenoe 1993) theory that suggests families have lost much of their influence and functionality, and are in a state of ill repair and chaos. This perspective draws heavily from a functionalist or traditionalist model of what a family should "lQok like" in terms of a married breadwinner husband/father and stay at home wife/mother. Given this theory, the growing diversity in American family structure is strong evidence supporting an idea of family deterioration. On the other hand is a perspective closely aligned with feminist family theory that suggests families are diverse, and that their functionality (or lack thereof) has more to do with external, as opposed to internal, forces. While these two camps sensationalize issues and outcomes relating to families, the research, evidence, and actual everyday living experiences of families is "somewhere in the middle, between the two extremes" (Bengtson et al 2002). To accommodate this more moderate and less polarizing position, Bengtson, Biblarz, and Roberts (2002) offer a third perspective-the family solidarity hypothesis. 138 According to this perspective, families are "adaptive and resilient in the face of social change" (Bengtson et al2002:135). This perspective acknowledges the changing face of families, particularly in terms of structure, "but unlike the family decline position, the family solidarity perspective does not equate family diversity with family breakdown" (Bengtson et al2002:135). There is an embedded idea here that the overall functions that families perform, namely caring for younger and older generations, transmitting values, and providing companionship, have not changed greatly, but the ways in which families deal with these responsibilities and functions have adapted to meet the needs of a new social era. In addition, families are both durable and flexible, having the ability to adjust to an ever-changing set of expectations and norms. ~ This idea is particularly important as it relates to race and family. Contrary to the discourse purported by the Moynihan Report (1965), family structure itself should not be seen as uniquely contributing to negative outcomes. In what ways does the family solidarity hypothesis inform the "lack" of change found in this research? It is important to first note that when I suggest that there has been a lack of change over the past decades, I am not saying that there has been no change, because of course there has, as the tables and figures provided in this research illustrate, but that the change is more or less expected, and far from noteworthy. The extremist positions purport change in families that is drastic and in the case of family decline theorists even negative. This research has shown very little in the way of unpredicted or unforeseen outcomes for long-term educational attainment. Family background effects remain influential to an extent, but are far from the "end all be all" as the determining factor for 139 future educational achievement. In fact, the time trend analysis shows a consistent and overall increase for both whites and African Americans, regardless of childhood family structure. That is, long-term education improved over the course of the time trend analysis over each of the birth decades. This research has shown that over the past nearly seven decades, the relationships between race, childhood family structure, and long-term educational attainment have remained fairly consistent. This suggests both that family influence is declining (given the "rising tide" theory), and that families are adapting to the changes in American society. Issues Relating to Race and Family ~ Childhood family structure, although declining in significance __ over the past few generations, continues to be a predictor of educational attainment. This research has shown, though, that there is little to no difference in long-term educational attainment between whites and African Americans from similar childhood family structures. In addition, this research has show that this pattern has held fairly constant over nearly the past century. The bottom line, though, is that race does matter and that even though family effects are similar for whites and African Americans there is still a noticeable gap in overall education attainment between the two racial groups. There are still systemic and persistent differences in terms of white and African American education outcomes. If they are not to be found at the micro level (family or "culture"), where are they? I point to two primary ways to answer this question. First, I 140 suggest that public policy relating to issues of racial equality is "watered down". Second, I suggest that there exists a persistent racism in American society. Race and Public Policy Public policy comes in many forms-it can be created by judicial precedent, legal statute, congressional law, or even executive order. Likewise, public policy has specific socio-historical underpinnings. It is constructed to address and improve the particular social needs and issues of a given socio-historical time or event. Public policy relating to issues of race and racism have come in all of the above forms, but I suggest, that the policies created or tested through judicial review and judicial precedent are the most important, particularly because of the pervasiveness of the Brown decision and subsequent call for desegregation. Also, this is because the Supreme Cpurt (the judiciary level that many highly contested race related cases are heard) is supposed to reflect the general social temperament of society, taking into account popular opinion as well as constitutionality. As noted earlier in this chapter, prior to the 1954 Brown decision, the 1896 Plessy decision was the law of the land with regard to race and the legality of segregation. Also during the Plessy era (1890's- 1910's), the Supreme Court heard the Berea College (1908) case that involved Berea College, one of only two integrated southern colleges (Klarman 2004 ). Berea, it was contended, violated Kentucky state law that barred interracial instruction at all schools (Klarman 2004). The court's ruling in this case is noncommittal at best. Instead of deciding whether in general a state could compel segregation at private schools, the court held that since Berea was a state-chartered 141 corporation, "restrictions could be imposed on it that would violate the Constitution if applied to individuals" (Klarman 2004:24). In essence, the ruling suggested that the court believed segregation important enough to justify restrictions being placed upon individual rights. The Berea case was the only one heard by the court during the Plessy era dealing with education, none were heard as to consider the constitutionality of segregation within public schools. Following the Plessy era, and near the time of World War I, the court heard cases dealing with peonage (Bailey 1911; Reynolds 1914), transportation (McCabe 1914), and residential segregation (Buchanan 1917) (Klarman 2004 ). In each of these cases the justices decisions somewhat contradicted the previous Plessy ruling, ~ut did little in actual outcomes or results for African Americans (Klarman 2004 ). Between World War I and 1954, the court continued to hear cases that were race based. Their overall rulings in these cases were inconsistent-just enough in some cases, such as McCabe ( 1914 ), to appear a victory for civil rights, but with enough ambiguity to appease a public opinion that was generally in opposition. This ambiguity, I suggest is a characteristic of public policy, particularly public policy that is race based. Public policy has made attempts (that look "good", but often fail to provide real change or improvement) to ameliorate the educational attainment gap that exists between African Americans and whites. The 1954 Brown decision legally did away with segregation in public schools, and all other public arenas soon followed. Therefore, the assumption here would be that following the 1954 Brown decision, the gap between 142 white and African American educational attainment would decrease in real and tangible ways. It did not. Why not? In addition to persistent segregation in education are the increasingly high levels of residential segregation for African Americans, as well as Latinos. This indicates that desegregation in education is unlikely without specific plans and policies to make it happen. There are few if any policies designed specifically to address issues of residential segregation. Housing is very much considered a personal choice issue, and therefore is rarely tackled in terms of public policy. Residential segregation begets educational segregation, which in turn adds to the persistent race gap in attainment. Even more important, though, is the persistent nature of racism in American soci~ty. Aside from the most radical white supremacist, Americans shun the label "racist", and even actively say they oppose racism. How then, does racism persist in contemporary American society? Persistent and Structural Racism Contemporary American society (1960's- current) purports racial equality and equal opportunity, but tries to do so without addressing the REAL consequences of racism, or its persistent and systemic nature. Racism, if there is any, is considered an individual problem, an attitude or a prejudice someone has, not something relating to entire groups, let alone society as a whole. Bonilla-Silva (2003) begins to unravel the contemporary enigma that is racism in America. Bonilla-Silva (2003) suggests that whites have "developed powerful explanations- which have ultimately become justifications- for contemporary racial inequality that exculpate them from any responsibility for the status of people of color" (2). Taking the place of overt types of racism, such as slavery and Jim Crow laws, is the contemporary ideology of color blindness (Bonilla-Silva 2003). This ideology supports and maintains a status quo situation for structural racism, viewing the ways society functions as value-free and outside the realm of individual attitudes about race. 143 Bonilla-Silva (2003) defines a racial structure as the "totality of the social relations and practices that reinforce white privilege" (9). By this definition, all social structures and social institutions would be a part of the racial structure. That is, social structures and social institutions contribute in their own ways to maintaining and reifying a system of white privilege. White privilege goes largely unnoticed, as it simply looks like "business as usual" to whites in America. When white privilege i~ defined this way, it is more easily seen for what it really is, a structural system of advantage that whites both knowingly and unknowingly benefit from. Color blindness is the ideology that allows the structural system of white privilege to persist. Both the ideology and the structure are at the center of the persistent race gap in educational attainment. This research has shown no differences between whites and African Americans from similar childhood family structures in their long-term educational attainment. Common sense and contemporary and popular discourse tell us this should not be the case. Based on the pervasive discourse that followed the Moynihan Report (1965), there is a belief that African American family life is "pathological", and that the negative associations of single parent families will be even more readily consequential for African Americans. This research has shown this is simply not the case. Family structure provides 144 similar outcomes for whites and African Americans. Further, this has been the pattern for nearly a century. Early in this research, I suggested that as micro-level processes, such as family background dimensions, decline, as is evidenced, macro-level processes would increase. For African Americans the macro-level process of structural racism and the system of white privilege is an ever present and ever challenging situation. In conclusion, it is important to recognize a twofold challenge facing African Americans with regard to social outcomes, such as occupational status and educational attainment. First is the ambiguous nature of public policy that is constructed in ways that look "good", but do little in practice to truly improve situations in eml(irical ways. Second is the structural nature of persistent racism. Until these two issues are addressed, an educational race gap is sure to persist, just like the racism that created it in the first place. 145 Bibliography Amato, Paul R. and Alan Booth. 1997. A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Astone, Nan Marie and Sara S. McLanahan. 1991. "Family Structure, Parental Practices, and High School Completion." American Sociological Review 56:309- 320. Baca Zinn, Maxine, and D. Stanley Eitzen. 1993. Diversity in Families. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Battle, Juan. 1995. "The Impact ofDivorce on the Academic Achievement of African American and White Middle Grade Students." Family Perspective 21:61-74. ---. 1997. "Academic Achievement Among Hispanic Students From One- Versus Dual-Parent Households." Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 19:156-170. ---. 1998a. "How the Boyz Really Made It Out of the Hood: Educational Outcomes for African American in Father-Only versus Mother-Only Households." Race, Gender, and Class 6:130-146. ---. 1998b. "What Beats Having Two Parents? Educational Outcomes for African American Students in Single- Versus Dual-Parent Families." Journal of Black Studies 28:783-801. Battle, Juan, and Michael D. Bennett. 1997. "African-American Families and Public Policy: The Legacy of the Moynihan Report." Pp. 150-167 in African Americans and the Public Agenda: The Paradoxes of Public Policy, edited by Cedric Herring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bell, Jr., Derrick A. 1980. Race, Racism and American Law. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. Bengtson, Vern L., Timothy J. Biblarz, and Robert E. Roberts. 2002. How Families Still Matter: A Longitudinal Study of Youth in Two Generations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Benokraitis, Nijole V. 2000. "How Family Wars Affect Us: Four Models of Family Change and Their Consequences." Pp. 14-24 in Feuds About Families: Conservative, Centrist, Liberal, and Feminist Perspectives, edited by Nijole V. Benokraitis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 146 Biblarz, Timothy J., Vern L. Bengtson, and Alexander Bucur. 1996. "Social Mobility Across Three Generations." Journal of Marriage and the Family 58:188-200. Biblarz, Timothy J. and Adrian E. Raftery. 1993. "The Effects of Family Disruption on Social Mobility." American Sociological Review 58:97-109. Biblarz, Timothy J. and Adrian E. Raftery. 1999. "Family Structure, Educational Attainment, and Socioeconomic Success: Rethinking the 'Pathology of Matriarchy."' American Journal of Sociology 105:321-365. Biblarz, Timothy J. and Adrian E. Raftery, Alexander Bucur. 1997. "Family Structure and Social Mobility." Social Forces 75(4):1319-1339. Blankenhorn, David. 1995. Fatherlessness America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2003. Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ~ Bright, Josephine A. and Christopher Williams. 1996. "Child Rearing and Education in Urban Environments: Black Fathers' Perspectives." Urban Etjucation 31:245- 260. . Bruce, Judith, et al. 1995. Families in Focus. New York, NY: The Population Council ofNewYork. Blau, Peter M. and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational Structure. New York, NY: Wiley. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bumpass, Larry, and Ronald R. Rindfuss. 1979. "Children's Experience ofMarital Disruption." American Journal of Sociology 85:49-65. Chatters, Linda M., Robert J. Taylor, and Rukmalie Jayakody. 1994. "Fictive Kinship Relations in Black Extended Families." Journal of Comparative Family Studies 25:297-312. Cheal, David. 1991. Family and the State ofTheory. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Cherlin, Andrew, and Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr. 1994. "Stepfamilies in the United States: A Reconsideration." Annual Review of Sociology 20:359-381. Coltrane, Scott. 1996. Family Man: Fatherhood, Housework, and Gender Equality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Coontz, Stephanie. 1992. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. New York, NY: Basic Books. 147 Cox, Archibald. 1987. The Court and the Constitution. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Darity, Jr., William, and Samuel L. Myers, Jr. 1995. "Family Structure and the Marginalization of Black Men: Policy Implications." Pp. 263-308 in The Decline in Marriage Among African Americans, edited by M. Belinda Tucker, and Claudia Mitchell-Kernan. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Davis, J. A., & Smith, T. W. 1996. General Social Surveys, 1972-96: Cumulative Codebook. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center. Dawson, Deborah A. 1991. "Family Structure and Children's Health and Well-Being: Data From the 1988 National Health Interview Survey on Child Health." Journal of Marriage and the Family 53:573-584. ~ Department of Health and Human Services. 1998. "Report of Fin~l Natality Statistics, 1996". Dollahite, D.C., and A.J. Hawkins. 1998. "A Conceptual Ethnic of Generative Fathering." Journal of Men's Studies 7:3-15. Duncan, Otis D. 1961. "A Socioeconomic Index for All Occupations." Pp. 109-138 in Occupations and Social Status, edited by A.J. Reiss Jr. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. ---. 1968. "Patterns of Occupational Mobility Among Negro Men." Demography 5:11-22. Evans, M.D.R., Jonathon Kelley, and Richard A. Wanner. 1998. Paper presented at the International Sociological Association's Research Committee on Social Stratification and Mobility. Featherman, David L. and Robert M. Hauser. 1978. Opportunity and Change. New York, NY: Academic Press. Frankenberg, Erica, Chungmei Lee, and Gary Orfield. 2003. A Multiracial Society with Segregated Schools. Are We Losing the Dream? Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Friedan, Betty. 1963. The Feminine Mystique. New York, NY: Dell Publishing Company, Inc. Gillis, John. 1996. A World ofTheir Own Making: Myth, Ritual, and the Quest for Family Values. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Glassner, Barry. 1999. The Culture of Fear. New York, NY: Basic Books. 148 Glenn, Norval. 2000. "Who's Who in the Family Wars: A Characterization of the Major Ideological Factions." Pp. 2-13 in Feuds About Families: Conservative, Centrist, Liberal, and Feminist Perspectives, edited by Nijole V. Benokraitis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Graham, J.W., A.H. Beller, and P.M. Hernandez. 1994. "The Effects of Child Support on Educational Attainment". Pp. 317-354 in Child Support and Child Well-Being, edited by I. Garfinkel, S. McLanahan, and P.K. Robbins. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Hamer, Jennifer F. 1997. "The Fathers of"Fatherless" Black Children." The Journal of Contemporary Human Services November:564-578. "- Harper, Cynthia and Sara McLanahan. 1998. "Father Absence and Xouth Incarceration," Paper presented at the annual meeting the Ameiican Sociological Association (San Francisco, August 1998). Hauser, Robert M. and David L. Featherman. 1976. "Equality of Schooling: Trends and Prospects." Sociology of Education 49:99-120. Hauser, Robert M. and John Robert Warren. 1997. "Socioeconomic Indexes for Occupations: A Review, Update, and Critique." Sociological Methodology 27:177-298. Hawkins, A.J., and D.C. Dollahite. 1997. Generative Fathering: Beyond Deficit Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hernandez, D.J. 1993. America's Children: Resources from Family, Government, and the Economy. New York, NY: Russell Sage Publications. Hill, Robert B. 1971. The Strengths of Black Families. New York, NY: Emerson Hall. ---. 1993. Research on the African-American Family: A Holistic Perspective. Westport, CT: Auburn House. ---. 1999. The Strengths of African American Families: Twenty-Five Years Later. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. 149 Hill, Shirley A. 1999. African American Children: Socialization and Development in Families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1989. The Second Shift. New York, NY: Avon Books. Kaplan, Elaine Bell. 1997. Not Our Kind ofGirl: Unraveling the Myths of Black Teenage Motherhood. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. King, V. 1994. "Nonresident Father Involvement and Child Well-Being: Can Dads Make a Difference?" Journal of Family Issues 15:78-96. Klarman, Michael. 2004. From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Knox, V.W., M.J. Bane. 1994. "Child Support and Schooling". Pp. 285-316 in Child Support and Child Well-Being, edited by I. Garfinkel, S. McLanahan, and P .K. Robbins. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Kuo, Hsiang-Hui Daphne, and Robert M. Hauser. 1995. "Trends in Family Effects on the Education of Black ~d White Brothers." Sociology ofEdf)cation 68:136-160. Lamb, Michael. 1976. The Role of the Father in Child Development. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. ·. ---. 1986. The Father's Role: Applied Perspectives. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Mannheim, Karl. [1928] 1952. "The Problem of Generations." Pp. 276-320 in Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, edited by P. Kecskemeti. London, England: Routledge and Keegan Paul. Mare, R. D. 1980. "Social Background and School Continuation Decisions." Journal of the American Statistical Association 75:295-305. ---. 1981. "Change and Stability in Educational Stratification." American Sociological Review 46:72-87. ---. 1995. "Changes in Educational Attainment and School Enrollment. Pp. 155- 214 in State of the Union: America in the 1990s, edited by R. Farley. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Marsiglio, William, Paul Amato, Randal Day, and Michael Lamb. 2000. "Scholarship on Fatherhood in the 1990s and Beyond." Journal of Marriage and the Family 62:1173-1191. 150 Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Marking of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. McLanahan, Sara. 1985. "Family Structure and the Reproduction of Poverty." American Journal ofSociology 90:873-901. McLanahan, Sara, and Lynne Casper. 1998. "Growing Diversity and Inequality in the American Family" in Andrew Cherlin, Ed., Public and Private Families. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. McLanahan, Sara and Gary Sandefur. 1994. Growing Up with a Single Parent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. McLanahan, Sara, J.A. Seltzer, T.L. Hanson, and E. Thomson. 1994. "Child Support Enforcement and Child Well-Being: Greater Security or Greater Conflict?" Pp. 285-316 in Child Support and Child Well-Being, edited by I. Garfinkel, S. McLanahan, and P.K. Robbins. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Midgley, Mary, and Judith Hughes. 1997. "Are Families Out of Date?" in Hilde Lindemann Nelson, Ed., Feminism and Families. New York, NY: Routledge Press. Morehouse Research Institute and Institute for American Values. 1999. "Turning the Comer on Father Absence in Black America." Atlanta, GA: Morehouse Research Institute. Moynihan, Daniel Patrick. 1965. The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor. Myrdal, Gunnar. 1944. An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. New York, NY: Harper Publishers. Nock, Steven L. 1988. "The Family and Hierarchy." Journal of Marriage and the Family 50:957-966. Popenoe, David. 1988. Disturbing the Nest. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. ---. 1993. "American Family Decline, 1960-1990: A Review and Appraisal." Journal of Marriage and the Family 55:527-542. ---. 1996. Life Without Father. New York, NY: Free Press. Powell, Mary Ann and Toby L. Parcel. 1997. "Effects of Family Structure on the Earnings Attainment Process: Differences by Gender." Journal of Marriage and the Family 59:419-433. 151 Raftery, Adrian. 1995. "Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research." Sociological Methodology. 25: 111-164. Reeder, AmyL., and Rand D. Conger. 1984. "Differential Mother and Father Influences on the Educational Attainment of Black and White Women." The Sociological Quarterly 25:239-250. Roberts, Robert, Leslie Richards, and Vern Bengtson. 1991. "Intergenerational Solidarity in Families: Untangling the Ties That Bind" Pp. 11-46 in Families: Intergenerational and Generational Connections, edited by Susan K. Pfeifer and Marvin B. Sussman. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press. Rossi, Alice. 1987. "Parenthood in Transition: From Lineage to Child to Self Orientation." Pp. 31-81 in Parenting Across the Life Span: Biosocial Dimensions, edited by Jane B. Lancaster, Jeanne Altmann, Alice Rossi, and Lonnie R. Sherrod. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Ruddick, Sara. 1997. "The Idea of Fatherhood" in Hilde Lindemann Nelson, Ed., Feminism and Families. New York, NY: Routledge Press. Ruggles, Steve. 1994. "The Origins of African-American Family Structure." American Sociological Review 59:136-151. Schnittker, Jason, Jeremy Freese, and Brian Powell. 2003. "Who Are Feminists and What Do They Believe? The Role of Generations." American Sociological Review 68:607-622. Segal, Lynne. 1990. Slow Motion: Changing Masculinities, Changing Men. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Skolnick, Arlene. 1997. "Family Values: The Sequel." The American Prospect 32:86- 94. ---. 1998. "Solomon's Children: The New Biologism, Psychological Parenthood, Attachment Theory, and the Best Interests Standard" in Mary Ann Mason, Arlene Skolnick, and Stephen D. Sugarman, Eds., All Our Families. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Skolnick, Arlene, and Jerome Skolnick. 1986. Family in Transition: Rethinking Marriage, Sexuality, Child Rearing, and Family Organization. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. Snarey, J. 1993. How Fathers Care for the Next Generation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Stacey, Judith. 1996. In the Name of the Family: Rethinking Family Values in the PostmodernAge. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. 152 ---. 1998. "Dada-ism in the 1990's: Getting Past Baby Talk About Fatherlessness" in Cynthia Daniels, Ed., Lost Fathers. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press. Taylor, Ronald, ed. 2002. Minority Families in the United States. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Teachman, Jay D., Lucky M. Tedrow, and Kyle D. Crowder. 2000. "The Changing Demography of America's Families." Journal of Marriage and the Family 62:1234-1246. Thomson, Elizabeth, Thomas L. Hanson and Sara S. McLanahan. 1994. "Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources Vs. Parental Behaviors." Social Forces 73:221-242. Thomson, Elizabeth, Sara S. McLanahan, and Roberta Braus Curtin. 1992. "Family Structure, Gender, and Parental Socialization." Journal of Marriage and the Family 54:368-378. ~ USA Today, 2/16/96. "Million Man March: Theme Timely, but Org~zer Controversial." Reported by Desda Moss. · Wade, Jay C. 1994. "African American Fathers and Sons: Social, Historical, and Psychological Considerations." The Journal of Contemporary Human Services November:561-570. Wallerstein, Judith, Julia M. Lewis, and Sandra Blakslee. 2000. The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A Twenty-Five Year Landmark Study. New York, NY: Hyperion. Wilson, William Julius. 1978. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. ---. 1996. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Wojtkiewicz, Roger A. 1993. "Simplicity and Complexity in the Effects of Parental Structure on High School Graduation." Demography 30:701-717. Yogman, M. W. 1982. "Development of the Father-Infant Relationship." Pp. 221-280 in Theory and Research in Behavioral Pediatrics, edited by H. E. Fitzgerald, B. M. Lester, and M. W. Yogman. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Table A.1, Means of Independent and Dependent Variables by Childhood Family Structure, Race, and Birth Decade A2e1125-64 in the 1962 OCGI, 1973 OCGll, 1986-88 SIPPs, 1992-94 NSFBl, and 1972-98 GSS Whites hom in the 1910's Variable Education Total Years High School Completion Entry into College College Completion Socioeconomic Origins % N Family head's occupational status Family head was not employed Whites hom in the 1920's Variable Education Total Years High School Completion Entry into College College Completion Socioeconomic Origins % N Family head's occupational status Family head was not employed Childhood Familv Structure Two-Biological Single Mother Single Father Mother/ Parent Family Family FIIJiliJY Stepfather Family ll,34 10,25 10,35 10,25 0,57 0,45 0,42 0,40 0,27 0,19 0,19 0,15 0,14 0,08 0,08 0,08 33,92 28,75 30,19 29,79 0,05 0,44 0,08 0,13 85% 9".4. 4% 3% 7779 799 350 252 Childhood Family Structure Two-Biological Single Mother Single Father Mother/ Parent Familv Family FIIJiliJY Stepfather Family 12,20 ll,58 11,39 11,48 0,71 0,62 0,60 0,60 0,34 0,27 0,27 0,25 0,18 0,15 0,13 0,10 33,70 29,27 32,21 32,72 0,05 0,42 0,07 O,ll 84% 8% 4% 4% ll656 ll81 525 560 tl Total ll,l8 0,55 0,23 0,13 33,24 0,09 100% 9180 Total 12,09 0,70 0,33 0,17 33,24 0,08 100"/o 13922 > '"0 '"0 t'D = Q.. ...... ~ > ..... VI w Table A.1 Continued, Meau of Independent and Dependent Variables by Childhood Family Structure, Race, and Birth Decade Ages 25-64 in tbe 1962 OCGI, 1973 OCGD, 1986-88 SIPPs, 1992-94 NSFB2, and 1972-98 GSS Whites hom in the 1930's Variable Education Total Years High School Completion Entty into College College Completion Socioeconomic Origins % N Family head's occupational status Family head was not employed Whites hom in the 1940's Variable Education Total Years High School Completion Entty into College College Completion Socioeconomic Origins % N Family head's occupational status Family head was not employed Childhood Familv Structure Two-Biological Single Mother Single Father Mother/ Parent Family Family Family Stepfather Family 12,11 12,26 11,91 11,93 0,80 0,72 0,69 0,70 0,41 0,36 0,29 0,30 0,23 0,18 0,14 0,12 34,34 30,12 32,87 32,53 0,04 0,34 0,07 0,09 84% 8",4 3% 5% 13392 1261 514 15.6 Childhood Family Structure Two-Biological Single Mother Single Father Mother/ Parent Family Family Family Stepfather Family 13,41 12,74 12,76 12,68 0,88 0,82 0,79 0,8 0,53 0,41 0,42 0,43 0,29 0,2 0,2 0,17 36,7 30,09 34,91 33,79 0,05 0,29 0,08 0,11 85% 7",4 3% 6% 16127 1295 502 1096 I~ Total 12,61 0,78 0,40 0,21 33,88 0,07 100% 15924 Total 13,30 0,87 0,51 0,27 36,04 0,07 100".4 19020 ....... VI .,J::. Table A.1 Continued, Means oflndependent and Dependent Variables by Childhood Family Structure, Race, and Birth Decade Ages 25-64 in the 1962 OCGI, 1973 OCGD, 1986-88 SIPPs, 1992-94 NSFH2, and 1972-98 GSS Whites bom in the 1950's Variable Education Total Years High School Completion Entry into College College Completion Socioeconomic Origins % N Family head's occupational status Family head was not employed Whites bom in the 1960's Variable Education Total Years High School Completion Entry into College College Completion Socioeconomic Origins % N Family head's occupational status Family head was not employed 1 Also mcludes father/stepmother families Childhood Family Structure Two-Biological Single Mother Single Father Mother/ Parent Family Family Family' Stepfather Family 13,62 13,00 13,13 12,77 0,92 0,85 0,88 0,83 0,58 0,47 0,51 0,46 0,30 0,19 0,18 0,14 38,41 30,93 37,65 35,47 0,05 0,28 0,08 0,10 82% 8% 4% 7"/o 13682 1316 590 1097 Childhood Family Structure Two-Biological Single Mother Single Father Mother/ Parent Family Family Family' Stepfather Family 13,56 12,97 13,02 12,61 0,91 0,85 0,81 0,80 0,58 0,48 0,48 0,42 0,30 0,19 0,21 0,14 39,01 31,89 38,05 35,87 0,06 0,19 0,08 0,08 75% 11% 4% 9% 5269 793 292 627 (; Note: OCG I and OCG II include men only. SIPPs and NSFH2 include men and women. For OCG I an OCG II, I use Duncan's (1961) SEI for 1960 census occupational titles. For SIPPs and NSFH, Hauser and Warren's (1997) update ofDuncan's SEI for 1980 and 1990 census titles is used. "Family head was not employed" does not include missing values on origin SEI. Total 13,50 0,91 0,56 0,28 37,62 0,07 100% 16685 Total 13,39 0,89 0,55 0,27 37,89 0,08 100"/o 6981 - VI VI Table B.1, Means oflodependent and Dependent Variables by Childhood Family Structure, Race, and Birth Decade Ages 25-M in the 1962 OCGI, 1973 OCGU, 19116-88 SIPPs, 1992-94 NSFH2, and 1972-98 GSS African Americans bom in the 1910's Variable Education Total Years High School Completion Entty into College College Completion Socioeconomic Origins % N Family head's occupational status Family head was not employed African Americans bom in the 1920's Variable Education Total Years High School Completion Entty into College College Completion Socioeconomic Origins % N Family head's occupational status Family head was not employed Childhood Family Structure Two-Biological Single Mother Single Father Mother/ Parent Family Family Family Stepfather Family 8,94 7,68 8,74 7,80 0,34 0,24 0,31 0,29 0,13 0,09 0,08 0,06 0,07 0,02 - - 18,68 17,65 18,66 22,08 0,11 0,63 0,17 0,27 62"/o 22"/o 7% 8% 447 159 52 58 Childhood F!!!!!ili: Structure Two-Biological Single Mother Single Father Mother/ Parent Family Family Family Stepfather Family 10,18 9,76 9,85 10,09 0,41 0,40 0,47 0,39 0,18 0,09 0,21 0,23 0,07 0,05 0,04 0,07 22,62 16,70 20,38 25,00 0,09 0,34 0,12 0,17 66% 19% 7% 8% 790 223 84 101 I; Total 8,55 0,31 0,11 0,05 18,70 0,24 100% 716 Total 10,07 0,42 0,17 0,07 21,64 0,14 100"/o 1198 > "C "C ~ = Q. -· ~ = ......... VI 0"\ Table B.1 Continued, Means of Independent and Dependent Variables by Childhood Family Structure, Race, and Birth Decade Ages 25-64 in the 1962 OCGI, 1973 OCGll, 198(HIS SIPPI, 1992-94 NSFH2, and 1972-98 GSS African Americans hom in the 1930's Variable Education Total Years High School Completion Entry into College College Completion Socioeconomic Origins % N Family head's occupational status Family head was not employed African Americans hom in the 1940's Variable Education Total Years High School Completion Entry into College College Completion Socioeconomic Origins % N Family head's occupational status Family head was not employed Childhood Family Structure Two-Biological Single Mother Single Father Mother/ Parent Familv Familv FlllllilY Stepfather Family 11,26 10,81 9,98 10,85 0,56 0,48 0,37 0,53 0,25 0,20 0,12 0,21 0,10 0,04 0,05 0,06 24,20 19,63 23,05 25,01 0,07 0,39 0,13 0,15 69".4. 18% 5% 8% 1196 310 91 141 Childhood Family Structure Two-Biological Single Mother Single Father Mother/ Parent Family Family Family! Stepfather Family 12,55 11,88 12,02 ll,96 0,77 0,67 0,68 0,72 0,40 0,31 0,27 0,35 0,18 0,07 0,08 O,ll 26,12 20,92 24,96 24,68 0,07 0,27 0,16 0,13 67% 19".4. 4% 10% 1451 409 89 211 (; Total 11,08 0,54 0,23 0,08 23,44 0,13 100% 1738 Total 12,34 0,74 0,37 0,15 24,94 0,12 100% 2160 ....... VI .....:I Table 8.1 Continued, Means of Independent and Dependent Variables by Childhood Family Structure, Race, and Birth Decade Ages 25-64 in the 1962 OCGI, 1973 OCGII, 1986-88 SIPPs, 1992-94 NSFBZ, and 1972-98 GSS African Americans hom in the 1950's Variable Education Total Years High School Completion Entty into College College Completion Socioeconomic Origins % N Family head's occupational status Family head was not employed African Americans hom in the 1960's Variable Education Total Years High School Completion Entty into College College Completion Socioeconomic Origins % N Family head's occupational status Family head was not employed 1 Also mciUdes father/stepmother faiDilies Childhood Family Structure Two-Biological Single Mother Single Father Mother/ Parent Family Family Family Stepfather Family 12,94 12,69 12,44 12,44 0,83 0,78 0,77 0,74 0,47 0,43 0,33 0,41 0,16 0,13 0,07 0,09 28,38 24,00 29,91 27,44 0,11 0,36 0,12 0,18 62"A. 23% 4% 11% 1255 470 87 216 Childhood Family Structure Two-Biological Single Mother Single Father Mother/ Parent Family Family Family Stepfather Family 13,08 12,52 12,68 12,75 0,92 0,79 0,85 0,85 0,49 0,40 0,46 0,41 0,15 0,10 0,10 0,11 30,72 26,68 29,15 30,34 0,13 0,21 0,22 0,14 SO% 35% 5% 11% 529 367 49 114 (; Note: OCG I and OCG II include men only. SIPPs and NSFH2 include men and women. For OCG I an OCG II, I use Duncan's (1961) SEI for 1960 census occupational titles. For SIPPs and NSFH, Hauser and Warren's (1997) update ofDuncan's SEI for 1980 and 1990 census titles is used. "Family head was not employed" does not include missing values on origin SEI. Total 12,81 0,81 0,45 0,14 27,27 0,18 100"A. 2028 Total 12,84 0,86 0,45 0,13 29,24 0,16 100"A. 1059 - VI 00 Tllble C.1, Eltimllfa of tile Effc:cts of~ ofll'..Uy Jlack&rotutd ud Birtll Dcade .. Edacmoul o.tcomes: WJUte Mea ud w- AE! 25-64 ill tile 1962 OCGI, 1973 OCGD, 19116-311 SIPh, 1992-94 NSF'Hl, ud 1972-98 GSS Education (totallflftber of yean) Born in die 1910's Born in die 1920's Born in die 1930's Born in die 1940's Born in die 1950's Born in die 1960's I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I Childhood r-ily llruclure Two bioqical JIIIRllll flllllily (refereace) 9,46 9,47 10,47 10,49 10,96 10,98 11,73 11,73 11,81 11,82 11,47 11,50 Single IIIOiher r-ily -0,20 - 0,04 - 0,06 - -0,21 •• - -0,12. - -0,13 Single fidhc:l' (or fidhc:l'/lllqlmodlec) r-ily -0,73 ••• - -0,70 ••• - -0,69 ••• - -0,54 ••• - -0,44 ••• - -0,47 ••• Molber/slqJ{atber flllllily -0,73 ••• - -0,59 ••• - -0,61 ••• - -0,54 ••• - -0,67 ••• - ..o,n ••• Distmce from IIIOiher scale - -0,34 ••• - -0,27 ••• - -0,26 ••• - -0,26 ••• - -0,27 ••• - -0,31 ••• Geode~- (female= I) -0,01 -0,02 -0,1 -0,11 -0,17 ••• -0,18 ••• -0,11 •• -0,11 •• -0,13 ••• -0,13 ••• 0,02 0,75 ')oc:joeqwnnjc origiDs Flllllily lad's occupetioaalllllluS 0,06 ••• 0,06 ••• 0,05 ••• 0,05 ••• 0,05 ••• 0,05 ••• 0,05 ••• 0,05 ••• 0,05 ••• 0,05 ••• 0,05 ••• 0,05 ••• Flllllily bead was DOt employed -1,51 ••• -1,46 ••• -1,14 ••• -1,03 ••• -0,99 ••• -0,89 ••• -0,60 ••• -0,58 ••• -0,56 ••• -0,53 ••• -0,54 ••• -0,51 ••• N 9180 9180 13921 13921 15921 15921 19020 19020 16685 16685 6981 6981 X' R, 0,18 0,18 0,14 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,14 0,14 df 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 BIC -1767 -1785 -2042 -1901 -2159 -2178 -2590 -2609 -2265 -2285 -1000 -1017 High School Completion > Born in die 1910's Born in die 1920's Born in die 1930's Born in 1he 1940's Born in 1he 1950's Born in 1he 1960's I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 "'0 Childhood r-ily llruclure "'0 Two bioiosical JIIIRllll flllllily (refen:occ) - - - - - - - - - - - - tD Singlemolherflllllily -0,01 - 0,02 - -0,06 - -0,11 - -0,35 ••• - -0,18 - = Single fidhc:l' (or fidhc:l'/stepmother) family -0,56 ••• - -0,49 ••• - -0,51 ••• - -0,65 ••• - -0,51 ••• - -0,82 ••• - ~ Molheo-/stepfatber family -0,58 ••• - -0,48 ••• - -0,48 ••• - -0,59 ••• - ..o,n ••• - -0,83 ••• - -· ~ Distmce from IIIOiher scale - 0,23 ••• - -0,20 ••• - -0,23 ••• - -0,28 ••• - -0,35 ••• - -0,39 ••• n Geuder (female= I) 0,27. 0,25. 0,!5 •• 0,14 •• 0,13 •• 0,12 •• 0,16 ••• 0,16 ••• 0,15 •• 0,15 ••• 0,05 0,05 Socioecoaomic origins Flllllily bead's occupatiooal status 0,03 ••• 0,03 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,05 ••• 0,05 ••• 0,05 ••• 0,05 ••• 0,06 ••• 0,06 ••• Flllllily bead was not employed -0,87 ••• -0,79 ••• ..o,n ••• -0,68 ••• -0,78 ••• ..o,n ••• -0,73 ••• -0,69 ••• -0,69 ••• -0,69 ••• -0,87 ••• -0,83 ••• N 9180 9180 13921 13921 15921 .. ' 15«nl' ,; 19020 19020 16685 16685 6981 6981 X' 870 864 971 961 1008 1002 956 951 707 105 406 402 R, df 6 BIC -815 -828 -914 -923 -950 -963 -897 -912 -649 -666 -353 -367 ~ •• p < .01 ••• p < .00 I (two-tailed) ....... VI \0 Table C.1 Clllltilllled, EIWuta eftlle Effcctl of~ efF.-ily Backgreud 111111 Birtll Decade oa EdiiCIItioul o.u:-: Mite Maud Wome11 AJ!! 25-44 ill tile 1962 OCGI. 1973 OCGII. 19116-18 SIPPI, 1991-94 NSFIU, 111111 1972-98 GSS Entry inlo College Bam in tbe 1910'1 Bam in tbe 1920's Bam in tbe 1930's Bam in tbe 1940's Bam in tbe 1950's Bam in tbe 1960's I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I Oaildbood r.miy lllr1lcblrc Two biological pareot family (refcn:llce) Single lllllllhca' r.mily 0,07 - 0,10 - 0,16. - -0,16. - 0,10 - 0,05 Single falhc:r (Ill" falhc:r/llqliiiOibee) r.mily 0,05 - -0,01 - -0,34 •• - -0).7. - -0,16 - -0,16 Motbcr'/lllepfalber family -0,31 - -0,15 - -0).3 • - -0,12 - -0).1 •• - -0,36 ••• Distaa:oe from lllllllhca' scale - -0,02 - -0,03 - -0,09 • - -0,10 •• - -0,07. - -0,12 •• Geuder (female= I) -0,64 ••• -0,64 ••• -0,45 ••• -0,45 ••• -0,46 ••• -0,47 ••• -0).2 ••• -0).2 ••• -0,17 ••• -0,17 ••• 0,03 0,03 Socioecmomic origins Family head's oc:cupalioaal status 0,03 ••• 0,03 ••• 0,03 ••• 0,03 ••• -0,04 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,05 ••• 0,05 ••• Family bead wa DOt employed -0).9 -0).6 -0,39 ••• -0,34 ••• -0,36 ••• -0).9 ••• -0).3 ••• -0).4 ••• -0,36 ••• -0,32 ••• -0,31 •• -0).9 •• N 4958 4958 9621 9621 12400 12400 16547 16547 15202 15202 6196 6196 x> 315 313 657 655 ll26 lll3 1317 1314 1337 1329 542 536 R2 df 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 BIC -264 -279 -602 -618 -1069 -1075 -1259 -1275 -1279 -1290 -490 -501 Co/lege Graduation Bam in tbe 191O's Bam in tbe 1920's Bam in tbe 1930's Bam in tbe 1940's Bam in tbe 1950's Bam in tbe 1960's I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I Childbood family lllr1lcblrc Two biological pareot r.mily (refcn:llce) Single lllllllhca' r.mily -0).9 - 0,10 - -0,07 - -0,09 - -0).0. - -0).7 • Single falhc:r (Ill" falhc:r/stcpmolilec) r.mily -0,44 - -0).8 - -0,17 - -0,31• - -0,70 ••• - -0,37. Motber/lllepfalber r.mily -0,05 - -0,36 - -0,54 ••• - -0,56 ••• - -0,85 ••• - -0,70 ••• Distaa:oe from lllllllhca' scale - -0,18 - -0,12 - -0,17 •• - -0).2 ••• - -0,37 ••• - -0).9 ••• Geuder (femalo=l) -0,72 •• -0,71 •• -0,74 ••• -0,75 ••• -0,61 ••• -0,61 ••• -0).7 ••• -0).7 ••• -0,19 ••• -0,19 ••• 0,04 0,04 Socioecmomic origins Family head's occupaticiUil status 0,01 ••• 0,01 ••• 0,02 ••• 0,02 ••• 0,02 ••• 0,02 ••• 0,02 ••• 0,02 ••• 0,03 ••• 0,03 ••• 0,03 ••• 0,03 ••• Family bead WliS DOt employed -0,05 -0,09 -0,04 0,04 -0,13 -0,10 -0,14 -0,13 -0,35 ••• -0,33 ••• 0,04 0,04 N 22n 22n 4489 4489 6192 619~ 9638 9638 9288 9288 3785 3785 x• 50 49 206 203 284 ' 2io 412 408 547 542 241 239 R2 df BIC -4 -18 -156 -169 -232 -245 -357 -371 -492 -505 -192 -206 • p <. •• p <.OI ••• p < .001 (two-tailed) ......... 0'\ 0 Table D.1, Estiluta of tile Etrecu of~ ofFulily ~ ud Birtll Dcade • Edacatioul Outcomel: AfricB AmeriCM Mea ud Wo.._ ~ 15-64 ill tile 1961 OCGI, 1973 OCGD, 1916-811 SIPPI, 1991-94 NSFIIl, ud 1971-118 GSS Education (totol1111111ber of yean) Born ill the 1910's Born ill the 1920's Born ill the 1930's Born ill the 1940's Born ill the 1950's Born ill the 1960's I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I Cbilclbood family lllniCiurc Two biolqpcal parent family (n:fc:n:Dce) 8,13 8,18 9,20 9,24 10,17 10,21 ll,35 ll,33 ll,54 ll,60 ll,29 ll,23 SiDgle moCbcr family 0,02 - 0,13 - -0,07 - -0,34 • - 0,01 - -0,33 •• SiDgle falba' (or falba'/stqJniOIIIcr) family -0,01 - -0,19 - -1,24 ••• - -0,44 - -0,60 •• - -0,31 Molbcr/stepfalber family -1,16. - -0,12 - -0,47 - -0,51 •• - -0,46 •• - -0,33 DistaDce from moCbcr scale - -0,25 - -0,05 - -0,34 ••• - -0,26 ••• - -0,20 ••• - -0,20 •• Gmdcr (female= I) 2,24 ••• 2,08 •• 0,19 0,19 0,55 ••• 0,55 •• 0,24. 0,24. 0,31 ••• 0,31 ••• 0,25. 0,25. SociOCCClOOIIIic origins Family bead's occupatiooal status 0,05 ••• 0,05 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,06 ••• 0,06 ••• Family bead wu DOt c:mployed -2,08 ••• -l:J1 ••• -1,07 ••• -1,02 ••• -0,61 •• -0,51 • -0,48 •• -0,50 ••• -0,32 •• -0,26. -0,38 •• -0,39 •• N 716 716 ll98 ll98 1738 1738 2160 2160 2028 2028 1059 1059 x> Rl 0,10 0,09 0,04 0,04 0,05 0,05 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,07 0,14 0,14 df 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 BIC -36 -41 -6 -21 -44 -59 -88 -103 -80 -ll7 -liB -132 High &hoot Completion Born ill the 1910's Born ill the 1920's Born ill the 1930's Born ill the 1940's Born ill the 1950's Born ill the 1960's I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 > Childhood family structun: "C Two biological parent family (reference) - - - - - - - - - - - - "C SiDgle moCbcr family -O,ll - 0,18 - -0,14 - -0,31 • - -0,14 - -0,89 ••• - ~ Single father (or father/stepmother) family -0,09 - 0,29 - -0,78 •• - -0,43 - -0,52 - -0,57 - = Molbcr/stepfather family -0,27 - -0,12 - -0,16 - -0,27 - -0,57 •• - -0,65 • - ~ -· Distauce from lllOihez- scale - -0,09 - 0,05 - -0,19. - -0,18. - -0,26 ••• - -0,39 •• ~ Gmdcr (female= I) 0,82 0,82 0,01 -0,01 0,12 0,13 0,12 0,12 0,35 •• 0,35 •• 0,12 O,ll ~ SociOCCClOOIIIic origins Family bead's occupational status 0,02. 0,02. 0,02 ••• 0,02 ••• 0,02 ••• 0,02 ••• 0,03 ••• 0,03 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,04 ••• 0,05 ••• Family bead wu DOt employed -0,63 • -0,64 • -0,58 •• -0,5S •• -0,26 -0,24 -0,31 -0,3S. -0,27 -0,23 -0,57 •• -0,62 •• N 716 716 ll98 ll98 1738 J'!j, 2160 2160 2028 2028 IOS9 IOS9 x> 17 17 24 22 39 ,' 61 60 70 69 so 43 Rl df 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 BIC 22 9 19 6 6 -4 -15 -29 -24 -39 -8 -IS • p <.OS •• p < .01 ••• p < .001 (two-tailed) ....... 0\ ....... Table D.1 Coatiaued, Eltimata of the Effects of~ of Family Background and Birth Decade on Educational Outcomes: Mricu American Men and w- ~ 25-64 in the 1962 OCGI,1973 OCGll,1986-88 SIPPs, 1992-94 NSFIIl, and 1972-98 GSS Entry into College Born io the 1910's Born io the 1920's Born io the 1930's Born io the 1940's Born io the 1950's Born io the 1960's 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 I 2 I Cbildbood family slructuR: Two biological parmt family (rcfczalcc) Single IDiltbcl" funily -0,12 - -0,63 - 0,04 - -0,01 - 0,19 - 0,05 Single father (or father/stc:pmotlxr) family 0,74 - 0,04 - -0,37 - -0,44 - -0,65 • - 0,07 Moehcr/stq>father family -1,06 - 0,58 - -0,10 - -0,02 - 0,01 - -0,24 DistiiDce from IDiltbcl" scM: - -0,39 - 0,07 - -0,07 - -0,06 - -0,03 - -0,05 Gender (female=1) -0,32 -0,43 0,35 0,31 0,10 0,10 0,08 0,08 0,33 •• 0,32 •• 0,28. 0,28. Sociooonncmic origios F unily bead's oa:upational status 0,03. 0,03. 0,02 •• 0,03 ••• 0,02 ••• 0,02 ••• 0,03 ••• 0,03 ••• 0,03 ••• 0,03 ••• 0,05 ••• 0,05 ••• Family bead WIS DOt employed 0,41 0,54 -0,53 -0,75 • -0,16 -0,12 -0,50 •• -0,49 •• -0,53 ••• -0,46 ••• -0,26 -0,26 N 226 226 503 503 943 943 1604 1604 1667 1667 918 918 X' 8 8 28 21 16 16 53 51 66 51 68 67 R, df 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 BIC 25 14 9 4 25 ll -9 -21 -21 -27 -27 -40 College Graduation Born io the 1910's Born io the 1920's Born io the 1930's Born io the 1940's Born iii the 1950's Born io the 1960's I 2 I 2 1 2 I 2 I 2 1 Cbildbood family slructuR: Two biological parmt family (rcfczalcc) Siogle IDiltbcl" family -1,36 - 0,83 - -0,84 • - -0,72 •• - -0,04 - -0,14 Single father (or fatber/stc:pmotlxr) family -17,9 - -1,42 - 0,06 - -0,47 - -0,76 - -0,51 Moehcr/stq>fatber family -17,1 - -0,47 - -0,63 - -0,40 - -0,61 • - -0,23 Distance from motbec scale - -1,80. - -0,30 - -0,33 - -0,30. - -0,25. - -0,15 Geuder (female= I) 0,44 0,26 -0,79. -0,78 • -0,20 -0,21 -0,01 0,01 O,ll 0,10 0,38 0,38 Socioec:ooomic origins Family bead's occupational status 0,02 0,02 0,02. 0,02 -0,2. 0,02. 0,02 ••• 0,02 ••• 0,03 ••• 0,03 ••• 0,05 ••• 0,05 ••• Family head was DOt employed -0,77 -0,53 0,20 0,33 -0,19 -0,36 -0,71. -0,81. -0,21 -0,15 -0,46 -0,45 N 86 86 207 207 4DiJ .. 780 780 943 943 468 468 X' 13 12 14 8 15 12 39 35 40 38 50 50 R, df 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 BIC 14 6 18 13 21 12 1 -8 I -ll -13 -25 • p < . •• p <.01 ••• p < .00 I (two-tailed) """""' 0\ N

Asset Metadata

Creator Hirst, Ynez Wilson (author)

Core Title The effects of race, gender, and family background on children's educational attainment: contemporary patterns and historical change

Contributor Digitized by Interlibrary Loan Department (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Sociology

Defense Date 05/01/2005

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-494554

Unique identifier UC11297712

Identifier etd-Hirst-584265.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-494554 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Hirst-584265.pdf

Dmrecord 494554

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Hirst, Ynez Wilson

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses