Teens and inequality

I’m presenting two studies today that I found very troubling. First, Wray-Lake, Alvis, Plummer, Shubert & Syvertsen (2022) published “Adolescents’ Developing Awareness of Inequality: Racial and ethnic differences in trajectories” in Child Development. Here’s the abstract:

To advance knowledge of critical consciousness development, this study examined age-related change in awareness of inequality by race and ethnicity, gender, parent education, generation status, and their interactions. With longitudinal data (2013–2017) from 5019 adolescents in grades 6–12 (55.0% female) from California, Minnesota, and West Virginia, multigroup second-order latent growth curves were estimated for Black (13.7%), Latinx (37.0%), Asian (8.1%), and white (41.3%) youth. Black, Latinx, and Asian adolescents increased awareness of inequality longitudinally; white youth showed no change. Multiracial youth accelerated awareness of inequality in mid-adolescence; changes in race and ethnicity predicted decline, followed by increases. Girls with more educated, immigrant-origin parents started out more aware of inequality. Results signal the need for race-specific and intersectional approaches to studying critical consciousness development.

This is a large sample and a longitudinal study. The finding I saw as most troubling is the “white youth showed no change” in awareness of inequality, while Black, Latinx, and Asian teens increase in their awareness. Given the growing percentage of teens who are multiracial, it is also interesting that, in this sample, mid-adolescence is an important period. The next study talks more about differences between middle school contexts and may explain some of the behavior of white students above.

DeSmith (2023) published “How Schools Teach Children about Their Social Station” in Harvard Gazette. DeSmith reports work by Peter Francis Harvey, a sociologist who studied 4th and 5th graders in two schools – “a racially diverse upper-middle-class private school” (Truman) and “a racially diverse set of fourth-graders in a working-class public district” (Brighton). Harvey’s paper goes on to unpack three components of social station and how they differed at the schools. The first, what he calls “relative identity,” pertains to the child’s status in relation to others. He adds, “past generations at schools like Truman may have viewed themselves in relation to family connections and breeding.” Here’s more: 

What Harvey found at Truman in the late 2010s was that lessons on racial and ethnic diversity had been incorporated into the “already-always special” ethos. Students formally studied racial and gender inequality, but these lessons were just as useful in constructing individual identities. “They took these bits of identity as bases of distinction,” Harvey said.

Diversity and structural racism were downplayed by the all-white teaching staff at Brighton, where a more community-minded character was nonetheless observed. “They did things like bring in canned goods for the food bank,” said Harvey, who added that he didn’t see much charity at Truman.

What’s more, Harvey’s paper details Brighton children happily engaged with group work. This wasn’t the case at Truman, where students struggled to engage harmoniously in collaborative activities.

Divergent approaches to discipline illustrate “moral worth,” the second component of social station. As Harvey defined it: “Do you see yourself as having legitimacy that carries across situations? Do you see yourself as having some kind of indelible merit?”

At Truman, student behavior was never labeled as “bad.” The predominant form of discipline was termed “take-a-break,” involving a self-directed pause at the back of the classroom, framed by teachers as an opportunity to regain focus. “Discipline was not about rewarding or punishing good or bad behavior,” Harvey offered, “but about re-centering the self.” In other words, discipline was neutral or even affirming of the child’s intrinsic moral worth.

At Brighton, teachers regularly updated a highly visible chart tracking behavior — not achievement — with compliant conduct earning tickets tradeable for prizes. Each child started the day in the neutral zone. Behavior labeled as “bad” frequently brought fines, with the teacher simply shredding tickets accrued. “Yesterday’s merits do not discount today’s failings.”

Finally, “situated prospects” refers to the children’s agency and how they see their futures. Truman kids were taught that the world is pliable, Harvey said. They were carefree and confident about their prospects, even while remaining vague on specifics. On the other hand, Brighton kids learned the world is hard — a teacher even advised a group of fourth-grade girls to pick stable careers in case of divorce.

“At Truman,” Harvey summarized, “through an attempt to build up students, perhaps they build them up too far. At Brighton, in an attempt to keep kids in line, perhaps they knock them down.”

Harvey’s paper notes variations by gender and race. Girls and particularly Asian American girls at Truman were frequently singled out and encouraged to assume more confidence. At Brighton, teachers subjected Black students and those from poor families to more degrading forms of discrimination, including harsher discipline.

But this long-term project is not about inept teachers or poorly run schools, he insisted. It’s about elucidating widespread patterns in light of increased school segregation by class as well as the ability of the affluent to adapt and even exploit shifting cultural norms. Likewise, the paper is a must-read for those seeking to understand the roots of upper-middle-class entitlement and fragility.

I have reproduced most of this important article because I think it provides insight into why students who are not privileged come to believe that they are less worthy of success.