It’s not racist to say that family and parents matter.
It’s not racist to say that family and parents matter.
I n 2021, there was a radical transformation of the San Francisco Board of Education, led by Asian-American parents upset with race-obsessive educational policies: seeking to paint over a mural depicting the Founding Fathers, eliminating merit-based testing for the flagship high school, and proposing to combat racial-differential math outcomes by disallowing algebra from eight-grade curricula. In July, Ann Hsu, one of the new board members, said that it was challenging to educate black and brown students because of their “unstable family environments” and “lack of parental encouragement.”
The progressive community immediately condemned her comments as racist, with a number calling for her immediate resignation. Not surprisingly, Hsu issued an apology that included the following: “My statements reflected my own limited experiences and inherent biases. I made a mistake, and I am deeply sorry.”
What is striking, not one newspaper account, including the San Francisco Chronicle, questioned the assumption that it is racist to claim that home conditions for many black families are one source of educational disparities. Any focus on the behaviors of parents and students is deemed a racist blaming of victims. Only discussions of implicit biases of educators and racist underpinnings of educational policies are allowable.
Of course, this ignores a sustained body of research that finds that black youth with poor academic skills and increased criminal behavior were often not raised in households with two biological parents. The results persist even after making adjustments for income, parental education, and other possible explanatory variables. Indeed, many social-justice advocates reference the work of Raj Chetty, who characterizes “opportunity neighborhoods” as those with a majority of children living in households with both biological parents.
It is not surprising that Hsu mentioned parental encouragement, as that is a pronounced characteristic of Asian-American families: spending a large share of their often limited resources on improving their children’s educational skills and making sure that they spend substantial time on schoolwork. Indeed, a 2017 Brookings Institution report estimated that Asian students spend an average of two hours nightly studying, compared with one hour for white students, 45 minutes for Latino students, and only 30 minutes for black students. The report pointed out that black–white differences could not be explained by family responsibilities or time allocated to paid employment. Another study found that the group difference could be explained by the greater amount of time that black students on average spent watching TV.
Moreover, some progressives implicitly accept the notion that parents of black children in traditional public schools are less committed to their children’s education than are those who seek charter-school enrollment. The educator Robert Pondiscio wrote that one reason charter schools succeed is that they attract students whose parents “are not put off by uniforms, homework, reading logs, and constant demands on their time, but who view those things as evidence that here, at last, is a school that has its act together.”
Pondiscio agrees with critics: “Of course it is unfair. Children shouldn’t be penalized or disadvantaged for the actions or inactions of their parents.” However, he defends those seeking charter schools as a justified entitlement of determined, low-income parents — just as wealthy and middle-class parents move to the suburbs or pay for private schools for the sake of their children’s education.
Where lacking, parental behaviors can be strengthened through programs that come into the household. Among the most effective are visiting-nursing programs that provide in-home services to young mothers from pregnancy through their child’s third year. They can be followed by MIECHV (maternal, infant, and early childhood visiting) programs, which allocate funds that aid three- to five-year-olds. Other programs include Parent as Teachers and HIPPY (home instruction for parents of preschool youngsters). In existence for 30 years, HIPPY provides activity packets, storybooks, and manipulative shapes. HIPPY uses trained coordinators who go into the home and role-play activities.
Once children enter the school system, initiatives could mimic some of the charter-school policies that prod parents to be more involved in their children’s education. They could include subsidizing the parents and children’s attendance at cultural events on weekends: museums, theaters, etc. The main point is that schools must find ways to engage parents in the education of their children. These are clearly the aspirations of the vast majority of parents.
Many who engage in an exercise routine to improve their health flounder because of other demands on their time or their lacking knowledge of how best to proceed. They need a coach or trainer to assist in their efforts, to offer helpful suggestions and gentle prodding when needed. This has been the strategy of successful charter schools and should be embraced by the traditional public schools. Some parents may rebel, rejecting the help as paternalism, but for many it will help them become the parents they want to be.
Editor’s note: This article has been emended since original publication.