>Another good point Gladwell makes is about the parenting
>styles of low income and upper income parents. When i worked
>in an afterschool program for elementary children, i noticed
>much of what he was touching on, with the exception of the
>submissive factor for low income kids. The youngins i had were
>very assertive and asked alot of questions.

Dude!!!

There was a good article on that in the Times. I wonder if I can find it.

> But one thing was definite, the parents with less time on
>their hands, were just not really involved in what we were
>doing at the center. They just rushed in, scooped their kid/s
>asked, "were they good today?" and bounced. Many were working
>2 jobs and trying to go to school, so it's understandable.

Actually, I think this is the key here. Most of those "soccer moms" have busy schedules as well - but they make a lot of mental space/time and prioritize their child's education.

But taking the rich husband and overeager housewife out of the picture...

Take 2 married professionals with kids (doctor and a lawyer), and compare them with 2 "working class" professionals with kids (administrative assistant and a warehouse manager)

Whose parents do you expect to have more time?
Whose parents do you expect to have more money?

Now ask yourself which children end up with better grades?

For the sake of argument, if we can agree that the Doctor and Lawyer on average have less time to help Jamal and Keisha with the homework - you start to wonder why Jamal and Keisha academically outpace Connor and Madelyn - especially when hour for hour, Conner and Maddie's parents are @ home a lot more.

The Doctor and Lawyer combination (genetics aside of course) is able to structure their children's lives better.

It could be money for tutors and enriching family vacations. (although realistically, most high income professionals take less vacation time than their middle income counterparts - emphasis on wage income, not so much income from other sources)

In the NY times article that I can't find, "middle class" parents had
- Books @ home, and not just children's books - but books galore
- They spoke to children with adult vocabulary (the @ dinner discussions, with no TV, everybody contributing)

But overall there was not only the expectation of high achievement - but concrete steps to encourage and not stifle their children's creativity - often to the detriment of them being well behaved.

What this said to me when I read it, was that parenting really counts. It makes sense that your first teacher remains your primary teacher - and it's important that we as parents (current or future) understand our role.

Which then brings me back to the "busy" parent who just says hi and bye, and wants to know whether the kids should be disciplined.
...

Sheesh, I kinda got off on a rant here...

> At
>the same time it's wack because some of these kids had obvious
>interests that needed specialized focus and they weren't
>getting it.

^^Yup. That part where Malcolm says, "Katie loves to sing"
- working class response - "that's her personality"
- "middle" class response - "we need to get her a vocal coach, can you look into that honey" *hops online* *does google map search for vocal coach near home address and then school address* *finds several, makes phone calls the next day while at work.....*


>If we don't have anyone to push us and guide our
>focus, we will shift it to something else if the road gets
>rocky or if some other thing steals our attention.

Indeed. The parent nurtures the interest by getting the kid to a coach that can motivate and keep them on task. And when the kid gets bored, the parent finds them a different coach - cause @ some level kids don't really know what they want or what's good for them.

This book has so much that can be discussed, especially for people who the no NPR listening, arugula eating, "middle" class.

one
k. orr