No matter how many ways you slice the onion, it’s becoming more and more the case that married parents are exiting or very strategically accessing the public school system. This poses real medium and long term issues regarding funding and support for public school teachers.
What does exit mean? It means 30%+ of married parents’ kids are outside the public school system or inside it via de facto segregation tactics like specialized, high-parent-participation “options” or outright effective magnets/charters within a larger public school. About 15% are in private schools, with a steady increase in private Protestant schools specifically (although the general private school split is 45% Catholic, 40% Protestant, and secular bringing up the rump end at around 15%. The classical Christian academy is maturing away from co-op models to full-time private schools all over the country. Another approximately 7% are homeschooling full time, typically longer than a year but less than full K-12. Another 8-10% are doing various combinations of specialized public school programs, homeschooling using the public school curriculum (public-private partnership, “alternative educational approach”, the various names for this make it hard to break out on its own), and mixed schooling (combining several part-time school options).
Homeschooling is completely normalized now as an option to include in the college prep race among the very parents who dominate married parenthood, the college educated majority. It’s not part of a “fundie fringe”, it’s something a double digit percentage of married parents do for at least one year between K-12.
Also, kids just never stop costing money now, because all these options have costs in time and money. Either you’re writing checks, one parent is not working full time or outside the home, or both. The other side of it is that public schools push fringier and fringier views on the remaining children whose parents can’t optimize them into a special program where that stuff doesn’t come up or is cheerfully waivered out. Where I live, essentially in our version of the higher-end NYC public magnet schools, an example fringy goal is to teach transgender advocacy to kindergarteners in the “regular” public schools. It’s already approved, implementation is coming in another school year or so.
So even the very liberal parents who might be fine with this in junior high are making plans to do for-pay K or even K-3, on top of 7k/mo mortgages and 1k/mo property taxes to pay 100k salaries to teachers and 150k salaries to administrators who added this stuff to the curriculum. Exit isn’t cheap, and it’s not getting cheaper, but it is increasing over time anyway. This is not a stable equilibrium.
These are some links from the Census about how for married, double-earning parents, Working non-standard hours is more common than 9-5. There’s also some interesting things like non-standard working hours result in slightly higher likelihood of kids being in gifted programs and social clubs.
I think so. This is basically a link dump, though. Stimulant refers to adderall and other strong prescription-needed stimulant drugs, so not coffee or nicotine.
This is the usual glorious TLDR; from Scott Alexander. Steve Sailer picked it up and discussed it here, and if you even glance at the comments you’ll see a bunch of his readers use stimulants, previously used stimulants or are frothingly envious of people who have access to stimulants.
As to how this relates to American motherhood, since we’re closing in on 60% of births to women with a BA or higher, you have the largest historical group ever on an annual basis of women who came out of the hothouse high-performance, heavy-stimulant using college environments and decided to go for marriage and kids. So they are bringing in expectations of how to “be productive” that are influenced by heavy stimulant abuse, even if they didn’t mess with that stuff themselves or don’t know anyone who did.
It also explains some of the extraordinary cultural callousness around sleep deprivation, as well. It’s not just that being sleep deprived yourself makes you cold to other women experiencing it. It’s that the entire media culture is full of stimulant abusers who don’t think about the fact that nursing and pregnant women can’t possibly solve their sleep issues the way the stimulant users do.
The selection bias of women who come up in those high-performance environments but end up starting families anyway and trying to make it all work without those little helpers (and without cultural support to “trade across” with actual domestic support) is worth exploring, rather than continuing to assert that women are delaying marriage and childbearing to be scandalous cat ladies.
The money doesn’t go to the parents, though. But it’s the main path to the married class. A fundamental error is the view that college is a net financial loss for middle class women. But this dismisses the reality that the college “bride price” is how those women display their marriageability and secure marriage to a man who can lead them into firm footing in the married class. The fringe notion that college is for harlotry is nearly the opposite of the reality that’s led to a supermajority of children being born to college-educated mothers and a majority being born to college-completing mothers (BA and beyond).
Women were taking 40% of the BAs in 1970. Those women’s daughters have come to completely dominate married motherhood, so of course college for girls Just Makes Sense. When your daughter is going to marry a guy who’s already graduated a couple years earlier and who’s already making 70k while she’s walking into 40k starting, suddenly the 15k or 25k in student loans doesn’t seem like such a big deal.
I’ve been reading up on Montessori because personal reasons, and reading Maria Montessori’s own words on her methods has been truly a fascinating journey I’ve only just begun.
Her methods appear to work with very little boys who were the children of muggers and prostitutes, and they also have a robustness that worked when she was able to work with children from more ordinary backgrounds.
She took the naturalism of Rousseau and Nietzsche and interpreted them in a context of Christian liberty rather than pagan liberty. She admitted to rather desiring a world where nobody was a servant or had servants, she preferred an employee/employer model of two equals negotiating in good faith.
How all this relates to teaching 2-7yos (she had the occasional kid under 3, though she tried to work with 3-7) is that she wanted an open exploratory environment for the children so that they could learn self-mastery and to replicate correct behavior and discontinue incorrect behavior, in both the moral and physical senses. She also had a commune-style model, with the parents and the directress living in the same apartment building centered around the school, with live-in doctors as well. She talks in her pedagogy (method discussion) of essentially seeking a balance between the mother directing her own children at home and the directress reinforcing that in the Montessori school setting by consulting and talking with each mother weekly or so.
She wanted children to understand the proper form of things so that they would recognize them when they were older. She was very clear that her methods were not something that was the One True Way of Learning, but that she thought she’d gathered together the genius of men before her to find a path in which young children might be most optimally prepared for more formal education in the teen and adult years.
She felt that children discovering on their own would be better able to grasp introductory moral lessons in context. It’s a very radical and fascinating educational approach.
In America, it was literally dismissed by jealous nerdy men because it didn’t match up that well with their pen and paper test mania (although the children did get very good test performance, she wasn’t focused on maxing that particular stat). Interestingly Montessori’s methods and pedagogy were revived during the postwar era, particularly around the time the youngest Boomers were being born in the middle 1950s and early 1960s.
Activism is effective politically and even socially when it starts from one true thing. Even if a giant forest of lies is built up around that, one small grain of truth is what keeps people attached. This is more true of progressive activism than conservative activism, but that is fairly recent.
The reason conservatives lose so much of the time is that they prefer stories that don’t even have the grain of truth and then wonder why people reject them. A good example is the bizarre love affair conservatives have with food stamps needing to be converted into actual raw ingredients. That this was done and didn’t work and that food stamps really are better at both feeding little kids who can’t help who their dysfunctional parents are and at getting said parents to be less dysfunctional is something they appear to be utterly ignorant of. Conservatives prefer a story about how things ought to be over the historical reality.
That’s just one example. There are plenty of others. Wide open topic for discussion.
This is a teaser post, I hope to get the numbers up later this week. But the long and short of it is that the cognitive sort has happened. Women who have some college education and especially who are married have a majority of the kids these days (since 2007). This is kinda true even among black women, the college educated ones have a significantly lower OOW percentage and also represent a supermajority of married births since 2007. And with white women, percent married and percent college educated are identical shares of their total births since 2007, about 70% each.
By the by, nearly 600k babies were born to married PhDs since 2007. This number is pretty close to the number for women with less than an 8th grade education who are married.
The insight here is that I gotta believe my lying eyes and the CDC’s birth data tables. Men are impressed by women’s accomplishments or attempts at accomplishment if it has to do with higher education. Or they just met her there. Or both. The only ladder left is the college one and if a woman at least jumps for a rung and falls down with a busted rung of credits without the credential, she still has a better chance of getting married before the babies come than if she never tries.
So telling women in aggregate to not “do college” or complaining about them taking classes and not managing to finish enough for a degree is in effect saying that you don’t want kids, plural, in wedlock, to remain the bulk of births.
I have some preference for the world that was, where there were parallel ladders to intellectual life, but the very couples I’m reading about were already sawing up the other ladders about 70 years ago when they collectively agreed back then that college for both boys and girls was what they would sacrifice for. There is a whole section in that study about how much a couple would give up to send a girl to school and the researchers were surprised that as early as 1957, parents were already on Team College for girls in big numbers.
Related: A pew link from a few years ago, including a graph where you can see that this pattern was baked in decades ago.