School Readiness:  A Phony Issue?

Although Congress claimed in 1965 that Head Start would reduce juvenile delinquency, poverty, and dependency, the preschool initiative that today costs $7 billion a year has yet to demonstrate any lasting boost to the educational outcomes of at-risk children. Nevertheless, welfare-state advocates are now pushing for public preschool for all children, claiming it will dramatically improve educational achievement. Yet a study by the Goldwater Institute of Arizona warns that the public should not fall for the curve ball this time, finding not only that pre-K programs offer questionable educational value, but also that no crisis even exists to justify such action.

Among the extensive findings pulled together by institute president and early education authority Darcy Olsen, the most riveting is her observation that the huge expansion of early education since 1965 has not yielded rising outcomes of elementary school students. In 1965, only 5 percent of three-year-olds and 14 percent of four-year-olds were enrolled in pre-K programs. Today, those figures are 39 percent and 66 percent, respectively. Yet statistics from the National Assessment of Educational Progress show how fourth-grade reading, science, and math scores have stagnated since the early 1970s and in some cases fallen, even as the nation has tripled spending in education, increased teachers’ salaries, and reduced class sizes. Nevertheless, even in these subject areas, American fourth-graders still outperform their peers in France, Italy, and Germany, countries that have the kind of universal pre-K system that some want here.

In her review of the empirical research, Olsen finds that formal early education at best yields only short-term effects with at-risk students, effects of which “fade out” by grade three, and at worst yields adverse effects with mainstream children. Even where a program might be beneficial, like the often cited Carolina Abecedarian Project, its applicability to the preschool question is limited, as this costly intervention enrolled at-risk children at the age of six months in an all-day, five-days-a-week, and twelve-months-a-year program for four-and-a-half years.

Nor are conventional preschool programs any more promising. Olsen notes that after ten years and spending $1.15 billion making preschool free for all four-year-olds in the Peach State, scores on the Georgia Kindergarten Assessment Program remain essentially unchanged since 1993 (when the experiment began) and that differences between students (who were in preschool and those who were not) are not statistically significant. She also wonders what crisis initiatives like Georgia’s are intended to address, citing studies from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, K Cohort, that reveal—on the basis of the “readiness” standards of Goals 2000—that close to 90 percent of children already start kindergarten well-prepared and with a strong foundation.

These findings lead Olsen to lament that the current debate has little to do with the cost or effectiveness of preschooling: “At heart is the question of in whose hands the responsibility for young children should rest. On that question, plans to entrench the state further into early education cannot be squared with a free society that cherishes the primacy of the family over the state.”

(Source: Darcy Olsen and Jennifer Martin, “Assessing Proposals for Preschool and Kindergarten: Essential Information for Parents, Taxpayers, and Policymakers,” Policy Report No. 201, February 8, 2005, Goldwater Institute, Phoenix, Arizona.)

A Jaundiced Look at Stepfathers  

If schooled in traditional fairytales, even young children recognize the cruelty and coldness of the stereotypical stepmother.  But modern social science is fast developing a composite portrait of the typical stepfather that is almost as negative.  Indeed, in the latest addition to that composite portrait—published in The Journal of Divorce & Remarriage by researchers at Mount Allison University—stepfathers appear decidedly cold and ineffectual.

Surveying 95 undergraduates enrolled in psychology courses, the Mount Allison scholars adduce troubling evidence that young adults from stepfamilies often view their stepfathers in an unfavorable light.  The qualitative indications of such a negative view appear in survey comments referring to strained relationships with stepfathers: “The only disadvantage [of having a stepfather] would be the confusion that was caused as a child.  If other kids had a ‘Mom’ and ‘Dad,’ why didn’t I?”  “It’s annoying to have someone who is not your father try and tell you what to do or lay down rules.”  “They try to replace your father, which I think is not right.”  “Sometimes they try to act like a father figure, but it doesn’t work.”

The quantitative substance of stepchildren’s negative views of their stepfathers emerges in statistical analysis of their response.  That analysis establishes that biological fathers are regarded as “warmer” and “more successful” than are stepfathers (p < 0.005 for both variables). 

It might come as a surprise that statistical analysis identifies biological fathers as “more controlling” than stepfathers (p < 0.001).  But the researchers supply appropriate context for this result when they note that “discipline...seems to be as much a problem in stepfamilies today as it was 20 years ago.”  In other words, stepfathers cannot control their stepchildren, even when they try.  Further context for this new study’s findings comes from earlier research indicating that “children of parents who are characterized as providing higher levels of warmth and control score better on psychological outcomes than children where the parenting style is characterized [as] less loving but highly controlled.”

It is hard to see this new study as anything but bad news for many of the children who end up in stepfamilies.  But the authors of this study recognize that the number of such children will climb so long “as divorce and remarriage rates continue to increase.”

Only when a first marriage is stable and enduring are the children born to that union likely to experience the paternal warmth that makes even discipline a recognizable manifestation of love.

(Source: Stephen Claxton-Oldfield, Tracey Garber, and Kimberly Gillcrist, “Young Adults’ Perceptions of Their Relationships with Their Stepfathers and Biological Fathers,” Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 45.1/2 [2006]: 51-61.)

Going Cold Turkey

While some epidemiologists continue to gather data showing that married mothers are more likely than unmarried peers to engage in practices (such as breastfeeding) that foster good infant health, others are uncovering strong evidence that married mothers are distinctively less likely to engage in practices (such as smoking) that imperil infant well-being.  The latest proof that married mothers are distinctively likely to avoid dangerous practices appears in a study published in the American Journal of Health Behaviors by a team of researchers at Wayne State University School of Medicine. 

For the authors of the new study, it is a matter of some importance to identify which female smokers will stop when they become pregnant.  After all, “tobacco use during pregnancy presents numerous threats to the mother and exposes the infant to environmental tobacco smoke.”  That environmental smoke can cause “retarded fetal growth and development, premature birth, and spontaneous abortion, as well as increased morbidity and mortality throughout childhood.”  In their attempt to identify which smoking women will quit for the well-being of their unborn babies, the Wayne State scholars scrutinize data collected from a stratified random sample of 35,687 American women surveyed in all 50 states in 2000 and 2001. 

Not surprisingly, older and better educated women are more likely to quit smoking during pregnancy than are their younger and less educated peers.  However, marital status also jumps out of the data as a very strong predictor of abstinence from tobacco during pregnancy.  “Compared with women who were not married,” the researchers conclude, “the married women [in the study] were 3.34 times more likely to abstain [from tobacco] during pregnancy [p < 0.01].” 

As health officials look for new strategies for getting pregnant women to stop smoking, they may need to look for ways to get wedding rings on more of their hands. 

(Source: Xinguang Chen et al., “Age of Smoking Onset as a Predictor of Smoking Cessation During Pregnancy,” American Journal of Health Behaviors 30 [2006]: 247-258). 

Weaned Too Soon  

Because they understand that breast feeding confers remarkable health advantages on both infants and their mothers, medical authorities around the world strongly endorse the practice.  Indeed, a new study in Acta Pediatrica acknowledges that “numerous health agencies currently recommend breastfeeding as the optimal method of infant feeding for at least 1 y[ear].”  Written by a team of researchers at Brown Medical School and Boston University School of Public Health, this recently published study examines the duration of breastfeeding among first-time American mothers—and finds notable differences separating married mothers from their unmarried peers.

Examining data from a national probability sample of 3,229 first-time U.S. mothers ages 15 to 44, the Brown and Boston scholars report that only 1,960 of these mothers (62%) even started breastfeeding of their infant children.  And unfortunately, only slightly over half (58%) of mothers who started breastfeeding were still breastfeeding at three months (23% of the entire sample).  Only a little more than a third (38%) of those who started breastfeeding continued this healthful practice for at least six months.  And only slightly over one-tenth (13%) of those who started breastfeeding continued to do so for a full year (6% of the entire sample).

Through further analysis of the data, the researchers identify which mothers are most likely to persist in the breastfeeding of their babies.  “Differences in proportions of women breastfeeding,” write the analysts, “were most notable among women of different ages, marital status, and educational levels.”  The researchers further conclude “these same demographic factors were associated with differences in breastfeeding rates both early (within the first week of life) and consistently over the first 3 mo[nths].” 

When the Brown and Boston team focuses specifically on the differences separating mothers who breastfeed for longer than three months and those who breastfeed for a shorter period, marital status emerges as a highly significant distinguishing characteristic (p = 0.002).  Compared to their unmarried peers, the married mothers in this study were decidedly more likely to breastfeed their babies over a sustained period. What is more, since the researchers regard their data set as “robust,” they believe their “results should be generalizable to all first-time mothers in the US.” 

It would appear that health officials trying to increase the number of mothers who breastfeed may need to look for ways to encourage wedlock as a vitally important form of prenatal care. 

(Source: Julie Scott Taylor et al., “Duration of Breastfeeding Among First-Time Mothers in the United States: Results of a National Survey,” Acta Pediatrica 95 [2006]: 980-984.)

A Chip on Their Shoulder?  

With good reason, school administrators worry when students turn violent, making them ever watchful for ways to curtail such violence.  Some administrators have expressed hopes of containing such violence by involving students in sports programs.  However, a new study suggests that such hopes are misplaced.  What students need to restrain their violent impulses is involvement not with a sports team, but rather involvement with a two-parent family.  Indeed, a new study dampens any enthusiasm for sports as a strategy for making schools safer, while reinforcing confidence in the intact family as a social safeguard.

Published in Adolescence by researchers at the University of Arkansas and Birmingham-Southern College, this new study analyzes patterns of violence among 1,642 African-American children and teens enrolled in a central Alabama school district.  The statistical analyses included in this study should prompt second thoughts among those who view sports as a check against violence: “Belonging to a sports team,” the researchers write, “had a positive correlation with fighting” (p < 0.01). 

The same analysis, however, links living in an intact family to a reduction in violent impulses.  “Family intactness,” the authors of the new study report, “had a significant negative relationship with fighting” (p < 0.05).

Further multivariable parsing of the statistical data does suggest that some sports programs may actually curtail violent impulses while some intact families may fail to do so. Even so, the overall pattern should still raise doubts about the advisability of relying on coaches as surrogate fathers. 

(Source: Darlene R. Wright and Kevin M. Fitzpatrick, “Violence and Minority Youth: The Effects of Risk and Asset Factors on Fighting Among African American Children and Adolescents,” Adolescence 41 [2006]: 251-262, emphasis added.)  

Divorced Mom, Depressed Teen  

Adolescents often pay a high price for their parents’ marital failures.  They typically pay an even higher price for their parents’ nonmarital experiments with cohabitation.  The high emotional cost of dubious parental unions is all too evident in a study recently published in Demography by sociologist Susan L. Brown of Bowling Green State University.

To assess just how adolescents fare in various family circumstances, Brown looks at data collected from 11,201 adolescents attending 80 American high schools and middle schools.  These data enable Brown to evaluate the effects on adolescents of a family-structure transition (typically a parental divorce or remarriage).  “Adolescents who experience a family transition,” Brown writes, “tend to report higher levels of delinquency and depressive symptoms and lower levels of school engagement relative to those residing with two biological parents.”

Further statistical analysis establishes that the negative effect upon adolescents of having experienced a family transition “does not differ significantly from [that of] residing in a stable single-mother family for all three outcomes [i.e., delinquency, depression, and school engagement] nor does it differ from [that of residing in] a stable married stepfamily or stable cohabiting stepfamily for delinquency and depression.”    

In other words, stability in non-traditional households produces no better results for teens than does a family transition.

Not all family transitions, however, yield the same adolescent results. 

Brown’s statistics reveal, for instance, that moving from a single-mother family into a married-couple stepfamily is “not significantly associated with [changes in] adolescent well-being.”   However, these statistics clearly establish that “moving from a single-mother family into a cohabiting stepfamily is associated with increased delinquent behavior and decreased school engagement.” 

The distress and confusion teens experience when living in a non-traditional household or when living through a shifting household make it all the more tragic that “the share of children residing with two biological parents has been steadily declining [in recent years], and the proportion of children residing in stepfamilies or families formed outside of marriage, including single-parent and cohabiting families, are at all-time highs.”

(Source: Susan L. Brown, “Family Structure Transitions and Adolescent Well-Being,”  Demography 43 [2006]: 447-461, emphasis added.)   

Don’t Go Breaking My Heart  

Feminists have figured prominently among those pushing for more permissive divorce laws.  But how much will middle-aged women thank these feminists for exposing them to a decidedly increased risk of potentially fatal heart disease?  This question may well unsettle readers of a study recently published in The Journal of Marriage and Family by researchers at the University of Texas and Bowling Green State University.

The authors of the new study began their investigation of cardiovascular disease keenly aware that marital status often affects health and longevity.  Looking at 1990 data, the Texas and Bowling Green scholars acknowledge that “in the United States...mortality rates among unmarried women were 50% higher than those for married women, and the gap was worse for men: Unmarried men’s mortality rates were approximately 250% higher than those for married men.”  Narrowing their focus to the effects of marital status on heart disease, the researchers carefully examine data collected between 1992 and 2000 from a nationally representative sample of 9,760 men and women ages 51-61.  These data indicate that “marital loss is significantly associated with the prevalence of cardiovascular disease: Those who have been through a marital loss have significantly higher rates of cardiovascular disease compared to persons who are continuously married.” 

When the researchers compare data for men with those for women, they find that “the effect of marital loss on the prevalence of cardiovascular disease does not differ by gender.”  However, when the researchers look specifically at life events that occur in middle age, a distinctive gender differential emerges.  When middle-aged men experience a marital loss through divorce or death, that event “increases their risk of death from causes other than cardiovascular diseases.”  But middle-aged marital loss has “negligible effect” on the incidence of heart disease among men.   In contrast, “marital loss [in middle age has substantially] increased the risk of cardiovascular disease for women.”

The authors of the new study calculate that “the odds of having cardiovascular disease among remarried, divorced, and widowed women are higher by 58%, 60%, and 34%, respectively, than continuously married women, controlling for age, race, nativity, and parental survival status.”  The researchers comment that “a marital loss, divorce in particular, puts women at high risk for developing cardiovascular disease in late midlife, regardless of whether they are remarried.” 

The researchers reason that “mental health and disadvantaged socioeconomic conditions in particular are the main mechanisms for divorced women’s higher risk of cardiovascular disease.”  Accordingly, they see in “continuous marriage” the kind of “financial and emotional well-being” that “offers women protection against the onset of cardiovascular disease.”

As they contemplate their now-heightened risk of life-ending heart disease, American women ought to start letting feminists know just how much they appreciate their pro-divorce activism.

(Source: Zhenmei Zhang and Mark D. Hayward, “Gender, the Marital Life Course, and Cardiovascular Disease in Late Midlife,” Journal of Marriage and Family 68 [2006]: 639-657, emphasis added.)