In 1982, Johns Hopkins sociologist Karl Alexander began tracking 790 Baltimore schoolchildren when they entered the first grade -- and he followed them for the next 30 years of their lives.
Originally the study was called the “beginning school study,” and was going to look carefully at the first grade and track the consequences over time. It was based on the assumption -- one that dominated the literature -- that schooling made the difference between rich and poor, between those who moved up the ladder and those who were left behind.
Somewhere along the way, Alexander had to drop that name and that premise because it didn’t hold up. As Alexander’s school kids moved into adulthood, overwhelmingly they ended up more or less where their parents were.
In the results of the 30-year study and in his new book based on it, “The Long Shadow: Family Background, Disadvantaged Urban Youth, and the Transition to Adulthood,” Alexander finds that things that were supposed to be great equalizers -- like economic opportunity and education -- weren’t proving to be so equalizing.
Alexander talks to the Deseret News about education and poverty inside one of America’s most beleaguered cities, why the poverty cycle is harder to break than we like to think -- and what can be done about it.
Question: Your study has received a lot of attention because you found that white men without a college education had the best pick of what’s left of Baltimore’s high-paying blue-collar jobs. White men had 45 percent of industrial jobs, while African-American men with the same education had 15. Women had almost zero. What’s contributing to that?
Alexander: In the ‘40s and ‘50s, during the World War II mobilization, Baltimore’s economy was flourishing. Historians talk about the emergence of a blue-collar elite among the guys who worked in these trades, and they often had union protection. The kids we followed in our study -- their parents and grandparents -- benefitted from that boom economy, and they inherit that legacy.
Our interpretation as to why white men have better access is their family social networks going back to that time. Employment in lots of blue-collar work is through word of mouth -- fathers, uncles. When we asked about part-time work, in high school one-fifth of white men had part-time jobs in industrial work and construction. They weren’t plumbers and welders and auto mechanics yet, but they were working toward it. African-American men didn’t have those jobs. Who you know can really make a difference as to who gets into them.
Question: What about college-educated kids? Were they able to get ahead?
Alexander: Just 4 percent of kids from low-income families had earned a college degree by their late 20s. Middle-class kids had a 45 percent college graduation rate. That’s a shocking tenfold difference.
Question: All of these kids started out in first grade together -- why did the low-income children not progress though college, while many middle-class ones did?
Alexander: Middle class children are advantaged in school all along the way -- they perform better academically from the beginning. Middle class kids are more likely to be surrounded by books and magazines, they have educational toys and enrichment experiences.
Low-income kids started out first grade a half grade behind. They were often three grades behind by elementary school — at a third or fourth-grade level instead of fifth or sixth.
Question: And yet, despite that, 30 percent of urban disadvantaged kids went to college, but only 4 percent made it through. What happened there?
Alexander: It turns out that nationally rates of college dropouts are vastly higher than high school dropouts. In the book, we talk about two pathways through college. The middle-class pathway is the fast track through college -- they enroll immediately after high school, go to school full-time and go continuously through graduation. They are more likely to be living on campus and strengthening their attachment to school.
Poor kids take the “meandering path” and might have to pay as they go. They are more likely to enroll part-time and be commuter students. Each of these is associated with reduced likelihood of completing a degree. We hear kids talk about how they have a hard time seeing it through because they have child-care responsibilities, or they help a needy parent, or they don’t have the wherewithal to cobble together tuition or buy books.
Question: In general, kids ended up pretty much where their parents were. Why are parents so important to social mobility?
Alexander: The advantage of middle class white children accessing good work comes down to parents using their resources to help their kids -- and that’s not evil. Every parent wants to do the best they can. The difference is that some parents have stronger resources to work with. We need to recognize the kids who don’t have those resources and advantages and figure out ways to help them beyond the means of their parents.
Question: Based on your research, what would work to help urban disadvantaged kids get ahead?
Alexander: What we see is a legacy of explicit discrimination and exclusion -- African-Americans had limited access to certain kinds of jobs, and union programs were closed off to them. Residential segregation was maintained in cities, and banks had redlining practices. We have laws against those things now, but the practice of word-of-mouth for hiring and favoring people you hang out with is a tough nut to crack.
We like to think we have equal opportunity, it sounds good. That’s the country we would like to be. But we fall short of that.
We could more self-consciously help kids in inner city job deserts -- help them get out and into good job placements in the middle grades that will open doors for them later. Networking is the key. We need to invest in academic development and vocational development if we’re serious about doing this better.