The Marriage Strengthening Research & Dissemination Center (MAST) recently released a new research brief, “Trends in Relationship Formation and Stability in the United States: Dating, Cohabitation, Marriage, and Divorce.” Co-authored by CCF expert Dr. Karen Benjamin Guzzo, the brief is the first in a series aiming to provide an overview of the current state of research on romantic relationships.
Public Policy
Challenges Facing Cohabiting Couples Differ from those of Married Couples in this Crisis
A briefing paper prepared by Amanda Miller, University of Indianapolis, and Sharon Sassler, Cornell University, for the Council on Contemporary Families.
Much has been written about the challenges couples face as they adjust to “shelter in place” policies triggered by the coronavirus. A headline in The Atlantic terms the pandemic “a disaster for feminism.” Once dual-earner couples can no longer outsource their childcare, the author fears, many wives will fall back into the roles of 1950s and never find their way back into the workforce. More upbeat articles offer useful advice for couples who suddenly find themselves working from home on opposite sides of the dining room table. But most of the authors ignore the fact that many young couples facing this challenge today are not married. Among couples ages 18-24, for example nine percent are living with an unmarried partner, compared to seven percent who are married. The ratio of married to cohabiting couples grows with age, but still, there are more than 18 million cohabiting couples in America, and half of them are under age 35.
Cohabitors are different. The challenges facing cohabiting couples are often quite different from those of their married counterparts. For one thing, cohabitors tend to be less educated and to earn lower incomes. Among cohabiting couples in 2017, for example, nearly 53 percent earned $30,000 per year or less. And many cohabitors are parents; an estimated 5.8 million American children were living in cohabiting households in 2018. Almost twice as many cohabiting parents as married ones (46 percent vs. 26 percent) are low-income, earning 150 percent or less of the supplemental poverty measure.
Cohabitors, then, have all of the hallmarks of those most likely to be impacted economically. It is these young, lower-income workers who are the most likely to have lost their jobs in the most recent spate of layoffs. Those who are not among the more than 30 million people who recently lost their jobs are especially likely to be working in the low-wage positions that government officials have deemed essential – but not, evidently, essential enough to provide a living wage or the benefits of health care and paid leaves. The stress of having no safety net or facing the prospect of catching the virus at work is a different order of severity than the need to figure out who will keep the children quiet if both partners need to teleconference at the same time.
Those differences lead to different available choices. In a surprisingly large number of cases, cohabitors may have to “shelter in place” with a partner they did not want to be living with even before disaster struck. Less-educated and low-income couples tend to move in together much more rapidly than their more-educated counterparts, often to save money on housing. This increases the chance that the relationship will not work out, but it also creates cost barriers to separating. Long before the stresses associated with this pandemic, about one-in-five cohabiting couples that we interviewed said their relationship had deteriorated since moving in together, with many preferring to live apart but not able to afford to. How will those cohabitors who, in the words of one man we interviewed, “hate the sound of [his partner’s] voice” or worse, those in high conflict unions, manage to weather the next few months with no real way to escape even as reports of domestic violence have surged, with calls to some hotlines increased up to 35 percent for March as compared to April?
The rush to marriage? At the other extreme, some cohabitors may intensify their relationships more quickly than they would have otherwise. The need for stability, health insurance, emotional support and income pooling may encourage cohabitors to marry even if they have not reached a point where one or both actually feels ready to do so. Marriages (as well as cohabitations) that are hurried along by such outside forces tend to have higher rates of conflict and are more likely to end in divorce.
Adversity can sometimes make a relationship stronger, and it turns out that cohabiting couples have one potential advantage here. The demands of sheltering in place with both or one working from home will require many couples to renegotiate their traditional tasks and roles in the household. This may be easier for cohabitors to accomplish because they already share housework more equally than do their married counterparts and because they are less “locked in” to conventional notions of gender. Other research we have conducted with our colleague Dan Carlson reveals that equality in housework is now an important source of solidarity and satisfaction for couples, while lack of such sharing is an increasingly powerful source of conflict.
Protect cohabiting couples. Still, we cannot expect even the most egalitarian couples to weather this crisis alone. To protect the most vulnerable couples in America, additional interventions are needed. Low-income and working-class cohabiting individuals need financial help now, not in the 20 weeks Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin suggests it may take. Since cohabitors are more likely to lack a bank account than their married counterparts, they are especially likely to experience a delay in receiving stimulus checks. Cohabitors also need access to quality, affordable health care so that they do not find themselves yoked to an unsuitable partner just to access the medical care they need in the midst of a pandemic. President Trump’s decision not to reopen the Affordable Healthcare Act marketplace for a special enrollment period will be especially disadvantageous to cohabitors. Finally, for those who find themselves in the most dangerous positions, additional immediate funding for domestic violence organizations so that safe additional shelters can be set up is required.
Crises can encourage people to unite and pull together. But individuals and couples need backup. Stephanie Coontz, Director of Research at the Council on Contemporary Families, points out that “for the sake of their fellow Americans, we are asking millions of couples to forego the interactions with friends and family members that are a critical source of well-being. The least we can do is make sure we don’t stint on the social and economic supports that government can provide.”
FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:
Amanda J. Miller, Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Sociology, and Director of Faculty Development, University of Indianapolis. 317-788-3547 (w) 812-480-9708 (c) milleraj@uindy.edu.
Sharon Sassler, Professor, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Department of Policy Analysis & Management, Cornell University, 607-254-6551 (w), 607-351-4870 (c ), sharon.sassler@cornell.edu.
LINKS:
Report: https://contemporaryfamilies.org/cohabiting-during-covid/
Press Advisory: https://contemporaryfamilies.org/cohabiting-during-covid-press-advisory/
—
The Council on Contemporary Families, based at the University of Texas-Austin, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of family researchers and practitioners that seeks to further a national understanding of how America’s families are changing and what is known about the strengths and weaknesses of different family forms and various family interventions.
The Council helps keep journalists informed of notable work on family-related issues via the CCF Network. To join the CCF Network, or for further media assistance, please contact Stephanie Coontz, Director of Research and Public Education, at coontzs@msn.com, cell 360-556-9223.
Follow us! @CCF_Families and https://www.facebook.com/contemporaryfamilies
Read our blog CCF @ The Society Pages – https://thesocietypages.org/ccf/
May 5, 2020
When “Helicopters” Go to School: Who Gets Rescued and Who Gets Left Behind?
When “Helicopters” Go to School: Who Gets Rescued and Who Gets Left Behind?
A briefing paper prepared by Jessica McCrory Calarco, Indiana University, for the Council on Contemporary Families.
We’ve all read about – and maybe even known – the “helicopter” parents who sweep into K-12 schools, demanding special treatment for their children, second-guessing teachers’ grades or comments, and insisting that schools adapt to their child’s unique needs. Teachers complain that these parents are “always rescuing their kids,” hovering over them and “making sure everything is done for them.”
As one elementary-school teacher wrote in an “open letter” to “helicopter” parents, “I love you, I do. But some of the things you do drive me nuts and are really bad for your kid! …Please, let them do their own work. Let them make mistakes and learn from them. Teach them hard work, success and failure.” In an online magazine for teachers, 5th-grade teacher Abigail Courter warned that parents may be “educators’ greatest assets” but they are also “at times, our biggest nemesis,” especially when they set their children up for failure by not teaching them how to cope with setbacks.
Yet whatever the long-term risks may be, “helicopter” parenting can give kids an edge in the tight race for “elite” college admissions and “elite” professional jobs. Most “helicopter” parents are highly-educated, affluent white mothers who intervene because they want their children to grow up to be highly-educated and affluent as well. “Helicopter” parents send their children to “high-quality” schools—schools whose reputation for academic rigor will help their children get into an elite college. But they do not shrink from undermining that rigor when it comes to their own children. They lobby for their children’s admittance to “gifted” programs and Advanced Placement courses even when they don’t qualify. They resist their children being punished when they break the rules. They demand that their children be given higher gradeseven when they didn’t earn them and press for letters of recommendation to elite colleges even when their children weren’t offered those on their own merits.
Now, it’s clear why “helicopter” parents have an interest in giving their children an edge in school. What’s less clear, though, is why schools are willing to let those parents give their children that edge at the expense of other children in school. Most educators honestly believe in equal treatment – and equal consequences – for all their students. So why do so many schools end up catering to privileged “helicopter” parents and their children, even when it goes against what teachers believe is best for students and undermines a school’s commitment to fair and equal treatment of students?
To answer this question, I spent three years observing and interviewing teachers, administrators, parents, and students at a socioeconomically diverse, public elementary school I call Maplewood (research-related regulations require that I protect the privacy and anonymity of my participants by not disclosing their names or the name of the school). In doing so, I found that:
To achieve or maintain a reputation as “high-quality,” schools rely on privileged “helicopter” parents for tax dollars, donations, and volunteer hours. “Helicopter” parents (especially higher-SES, white, stay-at-home and part-time-employed mothers) are often the mainstay of the unpaid volunteer labor force that schools must rely on to provide quality instruction and activities. As a result, teachers use special favors and strategic rule exemptions to avoid conflict with such parents and keep on their good side.
- Teachers told me they want to enforce rules but worry that doing so will lead privileged “helicopter” parents to make trouble for them with higher-ups in the administration. As 4th-grade teacher Ms. Russo explained:
Edward [a higher-SES white student] forgets his homework. And so I tell [Edward’s mother] that Edward will have to stay in for recess. And she writes back, [including the principal in the email, saying]: “I really believe that recess is a time for them to run around. I don’t believe in staying in.” [And the principal conceded]. So Edward has no consequences. If something happens, he’ll go home and tell mom, and she’ll write an email to the principal. And she’s threatening with words like “advocate,” “lawyer,” all these things. And because [Edward’s mother is] saying that, because she’s using the fear factor – has Edward stayed in for recess? No. He hasn’t had to face those consequences.
- Even without pressure from school administrators, teachers recognize that failure to meet the demands of entitled “helicopter” parents will jeopardize the help they get from such parents. As 3rd-grade teacher Ms. Filipelli explained:
At Maplewood, I get lots of emails. Daily emails. A lot of emails. There’s been one parent [a higher-SES, white mother], she’s… oh my goodness. It’s like I need a secretary to be dealing with all these emails. But I know those parents love their children. And those are the parents that help. So, if they have questions, I’m going to answer them. And you might find someone else complaining about it, but at [the lower-SES school where I used to teach], I never had any support. I would have, like, one parent helping. So, bring it on! I’m just happy to have the support.
In consequence, teachers tend to grant the special favors and rule exemptions that privileged “helicopter” parents desire, even when they believe those actions will be detrimental to students. Meanwhile, when less-privileged students and students with less-involved parents break the rules, teachers regularly keep them in for recess, reprimand them in front of their peers, take off points on their assignments, and evaluate them less favorably.
- Fifth-grade teacher Mr. Fischer, for example, knew that Ms. Becker, a higher-SES white mother, was doing her son Nate’s homework for him, noting that she tended to “over-manage” everything Nate did, limiting Nate’s ability to develop any “independence.” But Mr. Fischer did not try to stop the practice. Nor did he subject Nate to any punishment or grade deductions for failing to do the homework on his own.
- When higher-SES white student Drew, whose mother was highly involved in the PTO, forgot to do a language arts project, his 5th-grade teacher Ms. Hudson told him: “Don’t worry about it,” adding “That’s what responsibility gets you. There’s a trust, okay?” Yet when Cody, a lower-SES, mixed-race student whose parents were not visibly involved in school, read the wrong section of the book for homework, Ms. Hudson kept him in for recess, cutting off his explanation and saying sharply: “Well, the first thing is to make sure you have the assignment right. That’s responsibility.”
Policy Implications
Inadequate and unequal funding for public education makes schools dependent on higher-SES “helicopter” parents to achieve or maintain a reputation as “high-quality” schools. When schools can rely on those parents’ tax dollars, donations, volunteer hours, and support for students at home, they can provide the kinds of school environments— high test scores, small class sizes, ample materials, experienced teachers, enrichment courses, extracurricular activities, and state-of-the-art facilities and technologies—that most parents (especially higher-SES white “helicopter” parents) desire.
Since such amenities are not standard educational entitlements, schools are dependent on privileged “helicopter” parents to attain them, and that dependence routinely leads schools to capitulate to those parents’ demands. The result is a vicious cycle. The schools’ reliance on “helicopter” parents sustains the enrichment activities that create a first-class learning environment, but it also allows such parents to game the system for their children, thereby reinforcing successes that may be the result of special treatment rather than special merit.
Adequate and equitably distributed school funding (particularly if coupled with redistribution of funds raised by Parent-Teacher Organizations) has the potential to reduce schools’ dependence on higher-SES “helicopter” parents. Those resources would allow schools to offer high-quality opportunities and amenities for students without the need for support from privileged parents. They would also alleviate pressure on parents (especially mothers) to provide “helicopter”-like support for students both at home and in school.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:
Jessica McCrory Calarco, Associate Professor of Sociology at Indiana University, www.jessicacalarco; jcalarco@iu.edu;484.431.8316. Professor Calarco is author of Negotiating Opportunities: How the Middle Class Secures Advantages in School.
This briefing paper is based on a longer research article that will appear on March 4, 2020 in the American Sociological Review.
LINKS:
Report: https://contemporaryfamilies.org/when-helicopters-go-to-school/
Advisory: https://contemporaryfamilies.org/when-helicopters-go-to-school-press-advisory/
March 2, 2020
10 Scary Facts About Child Poverty
October 28, 2019
A fact sheet prepared for the Council on Contemporary Families by Dr. Jennifer Glass, Executive Director, Council on Contemporary Families and Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin.
Believe it or not, Halloween has its origins in folk customs designed to lower inequality between the rich and the poor during the Middle Ages in Europe. Poor people would visit the houses of wealthier families and receive pastries called soul cakes in exchange for a promise to pray for the souls of the homeowners’ dead relatives. Known as “souling,” the practice was later taken up by children, who would go from door to door asking for gifts such as food, money and ale.
Yes, that’s right, Halloween started as a way for poor families to claim alms from wealthier families at a time when formal social welfare systems did not exist. But lest we think child poverty is no longer an important problem, it’s good to get a clear reminder that children remain the most economically vulnerable age group in America. So here are 10 scary facts about child poverty in the United States to consider this Halloween.
1. Even after accounting for receipt of public benefits and programs for low-income families, 13% of U.S. children—9.7 million—are living in families with incomes below the poverty line. Without these public programs, the U.S. child poverty rate would be even higher, 19.7%.
2. Almost 40% of American children spend at least 1 year in poverty before they turn 18.
5. Our youngest children have the highest poverty rates (nearly 1 in 5 infants, toddlers and preschoolers between the ages of 0 and 5). Very young children are the age group most likely to live in poverty in the United States; those over 65 are least likely to live in poverty.
6. Effects of poverty on brain development start early and are most severe at the youngest ages, estimated at 8-9% reductions in frontal lobe size by age 4.
7. Poverty during pregnancy is associated with elevated risk for low birth weight and infant mortality.
8. Poverty affects children’s health not only when they are young (increasing rates of asthma, obesity, injuries, functional impairment, and mental illness) but also later in their lives as adults with elevated rates of physical disability, depression, and premature death.
10. There are proven ways to reduce child poverty – if we have the will do to it.
Several policy packages could achieve the goal of reducing child poverty by 50% in ten years. The costs of these packages are substantial ($90 to $100 billion a year) but small compared with the national costs of child poverty annually (between $800 billion and $1.1 trillion from reductions in adult productivity and increased health expenditures from growing up poor).
For more information, view the National Academies of Sciences full report on eliminating child poverty: https://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BCYF/Reducing_Child_Poverty/index.htm
Contacts:
Dolores Acevedo-Garcia, Brandeis University, email: dacevedo@brandeis.edu
Cynthia Osborne, University of Texas-Austin, email: cosborne@prc.utexas.edu
Defining Consent Symposium
CCF PRESS ADVISORY: How Can Colleges Define Consent and Reduce Unwanted Sex? No easy answers here.
Virginia Rutter
KEYNOTE: No Easy Answers: Can Colleges Define Consent and
Reduce Unwanted Sex?
Stephanie Coontz and Paula England
What’s New About Consent
Rebecca L. Davis
Sex and Consent on Campus: Definitions, Dilemmas, and New Directions
Deborah L. Rhode
Defining Sexual Consent on Campus: Media vs. Policies
Elizabeth A. Armstrong, Sandra Levitsky, Kamaria Porter,
Miriam Gleckman-Krut, Elizabeth Chase, and Jessica Garrick
“Consensualish” – Let’s talk about sex that people don’t want but “go along” with it
Jessie V. Ford
A Restorative Justice Approach to Campus Sexual Misconduct
David Karp
The Social Production of Campus Sexual Assault
Jennifer S. Hirsch & Shamus Khan
CCF’s Stephanie Coontz on Paying Stay-at-Home Parents in The New York Times
In a recent article for the New York Times, CCF Director of Research and Public Education Stephanie Coontz discusses the potential implications of paying stay-at-home parents, a role most often undertaken by women.
Coontz notes, “without strong incentives for dads to take on some of those duties, this would simultaneously cement women’s second-class place in the work force and perpetuate men’s second-class place in family life.”
