• Parents, peers, and schools all represent crucial influences that shape how white¹ adolescents make sense of racism and their actions toward social justice.
• Having explicit conversations with white youth about racism and embedding children in racially diverse environments that acknowledge race are essential to countering the dominant color-blind narrative that race “doesn’t matter.”
• Conversations about race with white youth must go beyond simply acknowledging historical and contemporary racism toward encouraging anti-racist attitudes and actions to address inequities.

Children receive messages about race and color-blindness from multiple sources

There is no “neutral” in racism. All youth learn to either reinforce or disrupt systems of inequality that uphold and maintain a racist status quo. As such, shielding white children from learning about race and the United States’ racist history encourages a way of knowing that is untethered to the country’s racial realities and further sustains white supremacy and racism.

Contrary to the color-blind narrative that positions racism as a thing of the past and “everyone as equal,” racism is embedded in structural forces (e.g., law, institutions, housing) and continues to shape all people’s experiences (though differently). The color-blind narrative is pervasive among white parents and caregivers and within predominantly white institutions (including school settings). For instance, only 53% of white parents believe schools should teach about the ongoing effects of slavery and racism in the United States, while 82% of Black parents hold this belief.

For white youth, social environments that counter the color-blind narrative and instead address racism may be integral to fostering social justice action.

Regardless of whether children receive explicit messaging about race, they interpret the various experiences, interactions, and (un)intentional messages in their lives. Parents, peers, and schools are three interrelated influences that shape how children make sense of race during adolescence. For white youth, social environments that counter the color-blind narrative and instead address racism may be integral to fostering social justice action.

What social contexts about race and racism do white adolescents in the United States experience?

In our research study, we examined the myriad influences that shape how white youth make sense of racism and the resulting impacts on their social justice behaviors. We used survey data from the Maryland Adolescent Development in Context Study to examine 323 white adolescents’ racial environments (i.e., the social contexts that may shape their beliefs and attitudes about race and racism), with particular attention to conversations with parents about race and racial attitudes, cross-race friendships, and conversations with peers about race.

We also looked at the diversity of youth’s schools with respect to racial composition and curriculum. We then explored how these different racial environments during adolescence (16-17 years old) related to white youth’s social justice actions two years later in young adulthood. All participants in the study lived in a racially and socioeconomically diverse county in the Eastern United States.

Photo: cottonbro studio. Pexels.

The racial environments of most adolescents (80%) were characterized by silence or passivity about race. Such environments align with a color-blind narrative in which racism is downplayed or ignored, limiting white adolescents’ ability to disrupt and challenge racism. However, the racial environments of some adolescents (20%) were more race conscious, meaning that race-related conversations occurred more frequently, schools were racially diverse and acknowledged race and racism in the curriculum, and adolescents had cross-race friendships.

How did different racial environments affect white adolescents’ social justice action?

White adolescents in race-conscious environments were engaged in more social justice behaviors during young adulthood than were white adolescents in racial environments characterized by silence. These behaviors included participating in civil rights or women’s rights groups. Our findings suggest that when white youth are in environments that are racially diverse and that acknowledge race and racism, they are more likely to take action in young adulthood to promote and foster social justice.

How can parents foster social justice attitudes and behaviors in their white children?

The findings of our study, in conjunction with other recent findings, challenge the often-espoused color-blind belief that not talking about race promotes equity. Instead, they suggest that having explicit conversations about racism and inequality, and embedding children in environments (e.g., schools) that are racially diverse or conscious of racism, can foster white adolescents’ reflection and actions toward creating and maintaining equitable social conditions for all people.

How can parents and caregivers foster a race-conscious environment for white youth?

First, parents and caregivers of white children should reflect about their own racial attitudes and beliefs. As we saw in our study, even parents who believed they had “positive” racial attitudes may foster a color-blind racial environment for their children.

Parents and caregivers must talk early and often with their white children about racism.

Thus, parents should challenge themselves to think critically about race in the United States and how their own racial identity relates to the ongoing perpetuation or disruption of racism. Numerous resources are available to prompt such critical reflection, including engaging with the works (e.g., film, books, art) of authors and artists of color that portray the racial realities of the United States.

Second, after such reflection, parents and caregivers must talk early and often with their white children about racism. For instance, when children bring up or notice race, parents should discuss what their child is noticing rather than silence them or communicate that noticing race is bad.

Building white adolescents’ skills

Discussing race and racism, celebrating and recognizing the contributions of people of color (which are often excluded from mainstream narratives), addressing racialized police killings and violence, and reflecting on the history and current manifestations of white supremacy are integral to building white adolescents’ skills for anti-racism work and for actively communicating the racial realities of the United States. (See EmbraceRace raising young white allies for more resources.)

Finally, the results of our study highlight the multidimensional nature of children’s racial environments. In other words, it is not just parents who play a role in how children make sense of racism, but rather a multitude of influences, including but not limited to peers and school. As such, fostering white youth’s social justice behaviors means embedding children in racially diverse environments in which cross-race friendships can form and where school curricula acknowledge and affirm people of color.

Photo: Ron Lach. Pexels.

White parents and caregivers can also promote change in their children’s schools by standing with parents of color as allies and teaching their children to stand up against racism. Parents can also support candidates in local and national elections who recognize the importance of discussing racism in educational settings. (Read more information on the debate about critical race theory in schools here.)

In conclusion – racial justice requires reckoning with whiteness and countering narratives

The take-home message is that reaching a state of racial justice requires reckoning with whiteness and countering the pervasive color-blind narratives that produce false and inaccurate understandings of racism in the United States. In particular, our study demonstrates how race-conscious environments can counter the racist status quo by building white youth’s efforts for social justice. Our findings also underscore the role of white parents and caregivers in ensuring that the next generation strives for an equitable and anti-racist society.

¹ Although the style of the Child & Family Blog is to capitalize ‘White,’ the authors have intentionally not capitalized the word when it refers to skin color. For information supporting this rule, please see The Associated Press.

The post Fostering Social Justice: White Adolescents’ Social Justice Action Requires Race Conscious Environments appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Developing the resilience of children and adolescents with parents in prison is important, but it should not involve just encouraging them to adapt to situations of disadvantage and injustice. Instead, the children and youth should be invited to challenge these situations. Finding ways to raise families out of poverty would go far in addressing the needs of families who have a parent in prison.

Impacts on children and adolescents of having a parent in prison

Having an incarcerated parent has multiple impacts on youth, with profound implications for both child and adolescent development. Antisocial behavior, psychological difficulties, trauma, risk taking, and health problems in children are all linked to having a parent in prison. Experts are also concerned about intergenerational transmission of criminality.

Children and adolescents with an incarcerated parent are likely to already be facing disadvantage and material hardship, and the imprisonment intensifies these problems. Imprisonment of a parent, particularly a father who earns money or pays child support, can cause intense stress for a family.

“In a 2010 comprehensive review of evidence, 58% of studies found that visits to parents in prison benefitted children, particularly if visiting arrangements were family friendly.”

Furthermore, imprisonment involves extra costs, such as legal fees, fines, prison visits, and phone calls. The pressure on the non-incarcerated parent, who is often already underresourced, can lead to a decline in the parent’s mental and physical health, which is linked to less positive parenting. And this, in turn, is linked to less cognitive and social competence in children and youth.

Incarceration exacerbates family instability, including relationship stress and the likelihood of divorce and separation. A child or adolescent may even become homeless: About 11% of children with a mother in prison and 2% of children with a father in prison enter into foster or state care. (However, the causal link between incarceration and foster care is uncertain.)

In some cases, incarceration can lead to improvements for children and adolescents, removing from the home a source of disruption, abuse, or violence.

Protective factors for children and youth

Researchers have identified a number of protective factors for children and youth with an incarcerated parent. A positive relationship between parent and child prior to the incarceration of that parent can help youth cope.

The quality of caregiving at home is very significant, though it is compromised by incarceration, as described above. Kin-based care, such as that provided by grandparents, can protect children and give them the opportunity to thrive.

The nature of a child’s contact with the parent in prison or jail can also make a difference. Contact can be through in-person visits or videos, recorded messages, letters, and phone calls.

In a 2010 comprehensive review of evidence, 58% of studies reported that visits to parents in prison benefitted children, particularly if visiting arrangements were family friendly. Four- to nine- year-olds were likely to show improved self-esteem following visits to their fathers in federal prison, as do the same aged children following visits to their mother in prison. In one study, adolescents with regular contact with their mothers in prison were less likely to drop out of school early than those with irregular or no contact. Children nine years old and older were less likely to display anger and alienation if they saw their mother in jail than if they had no contact.

All forms of contact seem to be beneficial. One study found less depression in four- to 14-year-olds who received more letters from their jailed parents than in their peers who did not receive letters. Letter writing was also associated with a stronger coparenting relationship between the two parents.

“Developing the resilience of children and adolescents with a parent in prison is important, but it should not involve just encouraging them to adapt to situations of disadvantage and injustice.”

Visits to prison can work both ways for children. They can help strengthen family bonds and the commitment to positive parenting by the incarcerated parent. They can provide an opportunity for sharing meals and playing games, and family members often report positively about the experience. But a visit to a prison can be very disturbing for a child.

In the United States, jails are locally operated, have shorter-term facilities, and typically have poor visiting facilities. In contrast, federal prisons hold people with longer sentences and offer more optimal conditions for visits.

Support for children and youth with an incarcerated parent

Parenting Inside Out is an intervention that has been evaluated via a randomized controlled study. It has shown positive outcomes for children’s and youth’s relationships with both the parent in prison and the parent at home. The program has many parts, including therapeutically organized visiting at the prison and collaboration with community agencies to provide support to the parent and family after the sentence is over.

Family-friendly visiting facilities are important and include having books, toys, and nursery facilities for very young children. Children and youth can also benefit from mentoring in their community to help them cope at home and at school.

Programs that focus on building children’s resilience look at the strengths already in the family and support family members to support each other and engage effectively with service providers. Sesame Street has created a multi-media kit, Little Children Big Challenges: Incarceration, that aims to help children thrive when a parent is incarcerated. Schools can also help children build resilience in the face of the adversity of having a parent in prison.

The Sesame Street program addresses social justice. It engages with parents to leverage power to tackle systemic problems such as poverty and disenfranchisement.

The post Supporting children and adolescents with incarcerated parents includes addressing social injustice appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Why might Latina teenagers spend more time with family? We studied data from the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) between 2003 and 2019, and found that differences in household structure, family structure, youth’s work hours, parents’ education, parents’ work, and geographic region could not fully explain differences in time Latinos’/as’ time spent with family versus with peers.

“Extra time with family, especially for Latina youth, could be due to differences in attitudes and values related to familismo and marianismo.”

Instead, we believe the extra time with family, especially for Latina youth, could be due to differences in attitudes and values related to familismo and marianismo. Familismo attitudes place a high value on family closeness, cohesion, and reciprocity. Marianismo involves the belief that girls should be nurturing and self-sacrificing for family.

Extra time with family, especially for Latina youth, could also be both an asset and a constraint. Several studies show that when familismo is strong, there is likely to be less family conflict, lower adolescent-parent conflict, more tight-knit families, and fewer suicide attempts. Yet, extra time with family could be a constraint on Latino/a youth if familismo values such as spending time together are not shared between parents and children or if time with family is burdensome or overwhelming. Additionally, extra time with family could be detrimental if it entails saying no to opportunities outside the household, such as educational or extracurricular activities, or even going to college away from home.

Other findings from our research

In our analysis of the ATUS from 2003 to 2019, we examined daily family contact patterns –  the total daily minutes spent with both nuclear and extended family – among Latino/a 15- to 18 year-olds. For the sake of comparison, we also included Black and White youth of the same age. Opportunities for family time may depend on who lives in the household, so we focused on youth who had focal family members (e.g., siblings, grandparents) living in their households.

On average, Latino/a youth spent more time with their parents than did Black youth, and more time with siblings than did both White and Black youth. Latino boys spent less time with parents, but more time with siblings, than did White boys.

“It may be time to reconsider what we think of as a “typical” U.S. teenager who distances themselves from family.”

Our analysis yielded some unexpected results: We thought Latino/a youth in immigrant households would spend more time with family than Latino/a youth whose parents were born in the United States, yet we found no such differences. Latino boys in immigrant households did spend more time with siblings but also spent less time with household adult relatives than Latino boys in non-immigrant households. We also thought Latino/a youth might spend more time with extended family than their White and Black counterparts did, but we found few racial/ethnic differences in time with extended families among the three groups.

The post Latina teenagers in United States spend more time with parents and siblings than other teenagers do appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

This means that gestures or “hand work” have an important role in teaching and learning. A recent study asked: Is non-verbal communication used in similar ways in culturally different communities?

The study examined the way children and their parents in two cultures – a Native American culture and a non-Native American culture – combine speech and gesture.

The Menominee children spoke more than their non-Native American counterparts.

Researchers watched how 4-year-olds used gesture and speech when playing with their mother or father. The pairs (17 child-mother pairs and 4 child-father pairs) were from the Menominee community in Wisconsin (one of 574 federally recognized Native Nations in the United States). The 4,000-5,000 Menominee people live on much-reduced ancestral lands in northeastern Wisconsin. The other 18 child-parent pairs (3 fathers, 15 mothers) in the study were from a non-Native American community in Chicago.

In the study, the pairs played with a forest diorama, consisting of both fixed landscape items and moveable trees and animals. This toy was developed by a collaboration between researchers and Menominee community members. The Menominee reservation is highly forested; hunting and fishing are important activities in the community.

The researchers observed videos of the pairs’ play and coded speech, gestures, and actions. (Actions could be placing an animal into the diorama, while gestures were hand signals and did not involve picking up anything.) Three categories of play were identified: verbal utterances on their own, gestures/actions on their own, and verbal utterances combined with a gesture or action. The researchers also measured how much the child and parent spoke – the number of utterances per minute.

The Menominee children spoke more than their non-Native American counterparts – 11.6 utterances per minute compared to 9.8. There is a widespread idea that Native American children are quieter, but this is clearly not the case when they are feeling secure with a parent and playing with something with which they identify.

For children in both communities, about 70% of all verbal utterances were accompanied by a gesture or an action. Gestures were more likely than actions to be accompanied by speech, to the same extent in both communities. Parents combined speech and gesture/action less than their children: About 45% of utterances of the Menominee parents and 40% of non-Native American parents were accompanied by actions or gestures.

The study provides a more culturally inclusive foundation for building on the cultural and community strengths of children in their education. It also highlights the important role of hand work in teaching and learning.

The post How do children and their parents in two cultures – Native American (Menominee) and non-Native American – combine speech and gesture? appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Involved, vigilant parenting is key to children developing the capacity to regulate their emotions and avoid poor mental health outcomes that can emerge from racism. This confirms findings from earlier research of African American families, with associations between positive parent-child relationships in middle childhood and adolescents having skills to make decisions, pay attention, avoid distractions, set priorities, and control emotions.

In this study, the researchers make the case that, given how typical the experience of the negative effects of racial discrimination is in African American families, it is important to understand these strength-based, cultural parenting assets. Family support services need to understand and build around these assets when delivering preventative interventions for African-American families.

Middle Childhood

Middle childhood is an important stage in child development. This is when children develop a greater sense of self and the capacity to regulate their emotions. Their social world expands during this time as they learn how to engage in wider social settings. Such social competence is associated with numerous positive developmental outcomes in adolescence. Talking to your children about racism is another topic we’ve covered.

In the abovementioned study, African-American mothers were asked how satisfied they were with their children and how happy they were with their relationship with their children. The mothers were also asked questions like, “How often do you know what your child does after school?” “When you discipline your child, how often does the type of discipline you use depend on your mood?” and “How often do you give reasons to your child for your decisions?”

Middle childhood is an important stage in child development. This is when children develop a greater sense of self and the capacity to regulate their emotions.

When the mothers reported experiences of discrimination, they were more likely to report depression and anxiety on their part, as well as strained relationships with their children.

These in turn were associated with a greater likelihood of lower-quality parenting, as assessed by the mother. Both maternal depression/anxiety and lower parenting quality are linked to a greater likelihood of children developing poor self-control and emotion regulation skills.

Results & Conclusions

The study produced one surprising result. African American children who experienced the negative effects of racial discrimination during middle childhood showed a higher likelihood of developing stronger self-regulation and emotional control in early adolescence, which in turn was associated with less depression and greater social competence. This was the same for boys and girls. In some children, exposure to adversity during early childhood may help them self-soothe and regulate emotion, protecting them from adverse impacts on mental health.

However, this unexpected finding does not counteract the overall negative correlations between a family’s experience of racial discrimination and symptoms of depression in children. These links were found both in this and in earlier work by the same researchers.

The post Involved, vigilant parenting in African American families protects children from the negative effects of racial discrimination appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

About 33 million children worldwide are displaced or in refugee camps, and many lack any form of education due to the pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many children in the United States are struggling with remote learning and emotionally distressed by the absence of social interactions. But significant numbers of children in the world do not have access to the Internet or to any education during the pandemic.

Children are our future. Yet about 33 million children worldwide are displaced and most of them are out of school. Refugee children are a case in point. More than 92% of refugee children live in developing countries. Lack of education during COVID-19 has the potential to become an even more destructive pandemic.

Rohingya children are receiving no education during the pandemic

In August 2017, more than 742,000 Rohingya fled to Bangladesh from Myanmar. More than 800,0000 Rohingya refugees now live in Cox’s Bazar in the largest and most crowded refugee camp in the world, and more than half are children and adolescents. Prior to the pandemic, children in Rohingya refugee camps were not allowed to receive education in local schools, barring them from opportunities to integrate into the local community in Bangladesh.

As a result of the lockdown due to the pandemic, about 315,000 Rohingya children and adolescents lost access to education in the camps’ more than 6,000 learning institutions, which closed in mid-March 2020. In January 2020, the government of Bangladesh promised to give Rohingya children access to education and skills training, but we know little about the fine points of the pledge because the pandemic has stalled any progress, creating an education gap ever since.

“They are neglected, lack proper nutrition and health care, do not have access to any education, and are caught in a limbo of an uncertain future, from which there seems no apparent escape. It is time to give these children a fair chance at life.”

What is being done to close the education gap?

For many decades, Rohingya parents in the Rakhine state of Myanmar have seen their children being killed, maimed, violated, abducted, attacked in schools and hospitals, and denied a chance at a decent life. The situation was so bad for these and other refugee children worldwide that in 1999, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1261 to protect children in conflict regions for the first time. But Rohingyas in Bangladesh continue to live in danger. The lack of access to education is likely to result in parents marrying their children off at an early age or losing them to human trafficking. This means that generations of children will not realize their potential.

Considering these issues, the Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commissioner of Bangladesh agreed that “it will definitely help” to educate children in the camp. Yet despite similar language from policymakers, a government directive in 2019 banned Internet access in the camp, so during the pandemic, even remote learning is not an option for children there, worsening the education gap.

Photo: taken at a learning center by Fatima Zahra in October 2019 (before the lockdown). It shows two siblings – getting ready to go home after school. Location: Ukhiya, Cox’s Bazar.

The violence against children affects not only the refugees in the camp but also the social architecture of the host community. Refugee children in Bangladesh are a big part of the future of the country’s political economy and national security. Many fear that the inequalities and violence in the camps already contribute to enhanced violence in the host communities surrounding the camps.

How to right the wrong against refugee children in three steps

Sadly, the fate of Rohingya children in Bangladesh is similar to that of most refugee children in the world. They are neglected, lack proper nutrition and health care, lack access to any education, and are caught in a limbo of an uncertain future from which there seems no apparent escape. It is time to give these children a fair chance at life through three steps.

1. Access to high-quality education

First, children need access to high-quality education that is in both the children’s mother tongue and the language of the host country.

Language of instruction determines the effectiveness of education. It also determines how children perceive their future (in the host country) and how they are accepted as people from another country (their home country). Rohingya children were allowed some form of education in the Rohingya language before the pandemic in the informal learning institutes in the camps, but the host community looks down on Rohingya culture and language so the children did not learn about their home country.

“We often forget that refugee children are just like our children – and that they are in our space because they have nowhere to go. Governments,including the newly elected U.S. government, the private sector, and donors can step up their game and play a major role in supporting the future of refugee children.”

Bangladesh should give refugee children access to the curriculum in public schools in the country. This will create a cultural bridge between refugee and host community children. The Bangladeshi government has been very clear from the start that they do not want to do this. While learning one’s first language has tremendous benefits, it also helps facilitate learning another language (such as Bangla and English) when the children are living in Bangladesh. Children who speak the Rohingya language can build on the language and literacy they know to acquire another language.

2. Access to mental health support

Second, children in the camp need mental health support. Many children and adults in the camp are suffering from acute depression and anxiety. These children need teachers who are trained to support the learning of children who have experienced severe trauma, anxiety, and depression, and who continue to live with constant uncertainty.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the camps are invested in supporting children’s education – assistance from the local and national governments will mean they can scale their efforts in training teachers to extend high-quality education to the children in order to close the education gap.

3. Access to high-speed internet

Finally, people in the camp need access to high-speed Internet. The first two steps that are needed to improve education are possible only if refugee children have access to the outside world.

Using the Internet is crucial for children to access both education and mental health support. NGOs and companies can set up Wifi hotspots throughout the camp, as has been done in the past in other camps. Once that happens, children can access remote learning programs. Parents also need access to the relevant technologies (such as smartphones and the Internet) so they can oversee their children’s learning, which is instinctive for most parents.

As leading post-colonial scholarHomi Bhabha said, “the refugee condition makes the most stringent and severe demands on the national community or the ‘world community’ to recognize the global right of hospitality which is at the heart of human survival itself … for a ‘good life lived with others.'” We often forget that refugee children are just like our children – and that they are in our space because they have nowhere to go. Governments (including the newly elected U.S. government), the private sector, and donors can step up their game and play a major role in supporting the future of refugee children.

Closing the education gap for refugee children will move us one step closer to building a strong and diverse leadership for the world.

Header photo: taken during a focused group discussion with Rohingya children and adolescents about their learning preferences and aspirations as part of a research study at the South Asia Institute at Harvard University. The picture shows a child solving some basic math problems to demonstrate what he learned back in his school in Myanmar. Location: Ukhiya, Cox’s Bazar.

The post Closing the education gap – Time to step up for refugee children appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Poverty research is prone to blind spots, especially with respect to race and racism.

Amidst the intertwined pandemics of COVID-19 and racism, something unprecedented should be happening in research on poverty and children’s development. Scholars should be looking in the mirror and starting to see their blind spots regarding race and racism. Scholars of color (who are in the minority) have been aware of this for years. Others are only just starting to see how their own training hinged on certain models that are White and WEIRD (Western, educated, industrial, rich, Democratic). They are starting to see how their own mentors reinforced privilege by allowing access to pipelines of opportunities that looked like their own. They are beginning to understand how their own research about “others” (i.e., people from places, experiences, and histories unlike their own) hinges on theories, methods, and importantly, assumptions that excluded the realities, experiences, and expertise of the very people being studied, particularly with respect to race and racism.

Blind spots are hard to see; by definition, they are about omission. Yet blind spots – such as clinical color blindness, overlooking issues of race and racism, or consigning race to a static variable – contribute to the creation of future scholarship and science, and to the fostering of explanations that can be terribly misguided. Such blind spots are harder still to address. Training and education – our typical responses — are only as effective as accepting what is reflecting back from the mirror and our efforts to continually shift and re-shift those reflections.

“The lived experience of families in poverty intersects with experiences of race, immigration status, and the structures and systems that perpetuate injustice.”

Historically, the neglect of race and racism in research on poverty and child development has been shaped by denial and fear of race — as immutable – carrying the burden of explaining poverty. This neglect is shaped by over-application of models that reinforce notions that being poor is less a condition of society and more a condition of being a member of a lesser-than-non-White group, whether Black, Latino, or indigenous in the U.S. context. And scholars with good intentions unintentionally began practicing “assimilationist” racism, preferring to ignore the issue rather than face it head on. The recent publication of Lawrence Mead’s “Poverty and Culture” in a peer-reviewed journal showed that, 50 years after Senator Daniel Moynihan’s report, The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, all these blind spots are surprisingly alive and well in poverty research.

How can family and child development scholars build a dynamic and resilient world view and a professional architecture to directly address race and racism in their research? How can scholars disrupt the perpetuation of inaccurate ideologies, and recalibrate power imbalances to optimize discourse and guide policy?

First, scholarship of and for children and families should stay grounded in lived experience. Data, whether in the form of numbers or words, do not emerge free of history and context; history and context should be the starting point. The lived experience of families in poverty intersects with experiences of race, immigration status, and the structures and systems that perpetuate exclusion and racism. At the same time, lived experience is the daily routines, survival strategies and resistance to oppression that parents, caregivers, workers, educators, and children and youth engage in every day. Research on poverty should be enriched by greater integration of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods literatures on intersectionality; racial socialization and identity; experiences of and responses to discrimination; representation, racial composition, and intergroup relations in  the contexts of work, schools, and media, and funds of knowledge and traditions of socialization in racially, linguistically, and culturally diverse communities. This list can go on. These areas of research are robust and growing, each typically with both basic developmental and applied/intervention studies. Research on mainstream poverty needs to change and view these emerging areas as core, not neglected.

Photo: Maria Oswalt. Unsplash.

Second, as scholars, we can surround ourselves in authentic ways with others who are outside our inner disciplinary circles, ask for and be open to accepting authentic critiques, and strive toward richer research questions that may generate more powerful implications. Poverty scholarship can go deeper than controls for race, considering it a fixed and context-free characteristic. How can experiences of racism at household, neighborhood, structural, or policy levels be integrated into policy research on poverty and child development? Would our proposals for anti-poverty policy be more effective if they integrated attention to racial segregation and other disparities by race in opportunity and social mobility? We can be much bolder in straying from conventional silos and daring to cross disciplines and levels of analysis. Race and racism are inherent at all layers of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, from macro-level structures to micro-level interactions. But because poverty researchers and race researchers largely do not overlap or collaborate, a number of novel questions are neglected. What would it mean to address structural sources of racism in tandem with other areas of anti-poverty policy? Can social movements change the linked and mutually reinforcing narratives around race and poverty?

Third, scholarship can and should start with understanding and questioning existing assumptions and pushing toward changing these defaults. Are we assuming that every child is born on a level playing field even though Black-White racial differences in household wealth are large and constrain the ability of Black families to respond to economic shocks? Are we naïve in assuming that enhancing income — the conventional realm of safety net policies – is enough to address intergenerational disparities of wealth, without concurrent efforts to adjust the many tax and transfer policies that disproportionately benefit the wealthy?

Fourth, we can diversify the poverty policy and scholarship research “workforce.” At any established public policy and social science, population, and developmental science research conference where poverty scholars convene, you witness a sea of White people, sometimes predominantly White male people. Contrast this with convenings focused on race, ethnicity, or immigration and child development: You see scholars who are closer to representing the diversity of the United States. A much more robustly diverse pipeline of scholars across disciplines is required. Fellowship programs recently initiated by the Russell Sage Foundation, and those set up years ago by the Foundation for Child Development, the American Psychological Association, and the National Institutes of Health, are important first steps toward diversifying the pipeline of scholars, but are only a start (and will fail as a singular source of interventions). If admissions to graduate training programs; hiring processes in research institutions and universities; and the topics of research valued in curricula, departments, and peer review do not change priorities, we will continue to see the artificial and ultimately harmful divide between research on poverty and race among both scholars and scholarship.

“Are we naïve in assuming that enhancing income — the conventional realm of safety net policies – is enough to address intergenerational disparities of wealth, without concurrent efforts to adjust the many tax and transfer policies that disproportionately benefit the wealthy?”

Fifth, we can be louder and more active in our universities as we pursue or engage in external funding, in our roles as peer reviewers and editors, and as participants and leaders of professional organizations. Scholars who have profited from existing systems can and should demand more change toward inclusion. This opportunity to lead brings together the substance, messages, and models, explicit and implicit, conveyed by our research. This is an opportunity to step away from privilege and question how the public profile and output of your work is framed through an anti-racist lens. This is also an opportunity to create mechanisms – publishing avenues, grants, forums for speaking engagements — that were previously closed.

Addressing race and racism in research on poverty and children’s development is going to be hard. However, the rewards will be full and rich, and will ultimately increase the impact of developmentally informed anti-poverty policies and practices. Our work will otherwise stagnate if we continue with siloed and segregated approaches, dipping into the same tools and perspectives that have shaped poverty research to date. That is, if we do not actively strive for change now, anti-racist poverty policy will not make progress. With such progress, we will be better positioned to overcome inequality in race and income, instead of chaotically reacting to public health and economic shocks like those triggered by COVID-19.

Author’s Note: We apologize for misconstrual in our use of the term “blind spot” and “color blind” that, while appeared effective at the time we composed our commentary, are also Ableist terms and can be harmful.

The post Race and racism: the blind spot in research on poverty and child development appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Breaking the cycles of bias and violence starts at home by talking to children about racism rather than well-meaning adults avoiding the subject.

In a 2008 column that went viral, the late journalist Fatimah Ali predicted that only the election of Barack Obama would save our country from a full-on “race war.” She was wrong. Obama’s two terms of service have long passed, but the racial injustices in this country are raging in full force. This spring alone, in the context of public health and economic crises that disproportionately ravaged Black and Brown communities, we’ve witnessed the systematic and blatant disregard for Black lives over and over again — George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, Christian Cooper. Communities of color and their allies are tired, weary, angry, and impatient for change. Photos of peaceful protesters speak to our hearts, while burning cars, boarded buildings, law enforcement officers in riot gear, and state-mandated curfews tell the story of a nation at war. Company CEOs, university presidents, national sports figures, and the general public are responding to the countrywide unrest and are watching closely.

Our youngest generation is watching, too.

In these painful times, when the structural racism and inequality of American society is so palpable, many parents are asking two critical questions. Most immediately, “How and how much should we discuss these recent racial traumas with our children?” More importantly “How do we teach this generation about what it means to be White, Black, or any other racial or ethnic group in ways that help dismantle, rather than perpetuate, the systemic racial injustices and inequalities that appear to be so intractable?” The answer to both questions is the same.

Photo: Victoria Pickering. Creative Commons.

As researchers with expertise in parenting among ethnic-racial minority families, we advocate an approach to racial discussions with children that is intentional, honest, and focused on equity and justice for all people. We call it “intentional parenting for equity and justice” (IPEJ). It entails deliberate and purposeful conversations and activities that increase children’s awareness of racial dynamics in our country and impel them to resist and change those dynamics, which most notably include institutionalized racism and oppression; racial stereotyping, microaggressions and their consequences; and the damaging effects of racial privilege on those who are excluded. IPEJ also involves identifying opportunities to expose children to the strengths and rich cultural traditions of all cultural and ethnic groups, including their positive contributions to all aspects of our society.

‘Intentional Parenting for Equity and Justice’ entails deliberate and purposeful conversations and activities that increase children’s awareness of racial dynamics in our country and impel them to resist and change those dynamics, which most notably include institutionalized racism and oppression; racial stereotyping, microaggressions and their consequences; and the damaging effects of racial privilege on those who are excluded.

To achieve IPEJ as a normative approach to parenting, we need to shift the status quo. Currently, many well-meaning adults avoid mentioning race to their children, choosing instead to uphold colorblind and egalitarian national narratives. This is especially true of White parents. Studies following the killings of Trayvon Martin (2012) and Michael Brown (2014) showed that these highly visible events motivated Black parents to have extensive conversations about racism and discrimination with their children. But very few White parents did so, citing their wish to maintain a protected, worry-free childhood environment. Our research shows that on a more routine basis, Black, Latinx and Asian parents are far more likely than White parents to talk about racial issues with their children, especially cultural pride and awareness of discrimination.

The status quo hinders racial progress. To strongly position future generations to dismantle systems of racial injustice, inequality, and privilege, parents must deliberately teach children that they exist, that they are complex, and that they are unacceptable.

Photo: Victoria Pickering. Creative Commons.

Too many teens in our studies – teens of all racial backgrounds – say that racism is a thing of the past that ended when Rosa Parks sat at the front of the bus, even though they notice current racial disparities in the way people live, the opportunities they have, and the way people are treated in public places and by authorities. Children are learning race even when parents are not deliberately teaching it, and they are drawing conclusions that do not include the damage caused by persistent structural issues. In addition, when parents fail to sensitize children to racial bias, stereotyping, and their harmful effects, these racial dynamics persist uncontested.

In our studies, racial teasing and microaggressions are rampant in lunch rooms, schoolyards, and other unsupervised social and digital spaces where youth spend time: Although students of all races experience these aggressions, youth of color experience them more often, leading to what has been called “discriminatory distress” which, when chronic, has cumulative negative effects well into adulthood.  Instead of passively allowing young people to overlook or ignore these racial dynamics, we need to empower them to implement change. Moreover, when White parents continue to communicate to their children that race is unimportant, the burden of racial progress and change falls squarely on the shoulders of children of color, entitling White children to rarely or wrongly think about race. All parents, not just parents of color, need to actively help our children understand, interpret, and resist the structural racism and implicit biases they see in order to help prepare them as future leaders who recognize and fight against their own implicit racism and the racism of others.

How and how much, then, should parents discuss current racial events with their children? As much as possible, in ways that are aligned with children’s ages and readiness to learn. Importantly, though, parents need to have a plan about what they want to convey and how. For young children, discussion of highly visible racialized violence should be simple and brief. Although parents should certainly shield children from graphic video footage, they should prepare themselves to answer children’s questions about things they might see in newspapers or on TV (e.g., why are police officers pushing people? Why are stores and cars burning?). Answers should be simple and brief, and they should reflect parents’ equity and justice goals.

Photo: cool revolution. Creative Commons.

In our work, many parents have described situations in which young children’s questions caught them off-guard, leaving them at a loss for what to say or how to explain. Of course, older children are in a better position to digest more complicated information about inequality and structural racism, and we advocate that parents have frank and accurate discussions about current racialized events (especially their history and origins). Parents’ silence about racialized horrors that children see on TV and social media is in itself a communication to children that racism and inequality are an acceptable way of American life. It is important for all of us (teachers, parents, youth advocates, and researchers) to recognize that children are drawing inferences about the meaning of these events even if parents are not talking about them.

How can parents teach this generation in ways that help dismantle, rather than perpetuate, the systemic racial injustices and inequalities upon which America has been built? Our IPEJ principles apply most directly here. Parents first need to closely examine their own racial beliefs and attitudes to position themselves to teach what they value most to their children. If possible, they should expose children early to diversity in meaningful ways (the places and events they attend; the friends they have; the toys, books, symbols, and wall hanging in the home). In age-appropriate ways, find opportunities to talk about, rather than overlook, how racism and oppression has been deeply woven into the fabric of American life, both historically and to this day. Deliberately discuss, rather than avoid, how non-dominant groups are negatively stereotyped and harmed by slurs, stereotypes, and other stigmatizing public actions and portrayals of minority groups, both historically and now. When and where they see them, parents can identify instances of privilege and opportunity that result in people of color having less access. Find ways to expose children to the strengths, rich traditions, and positive contributions to all aspects of our society of diverse cultural and ethnic groups. In general, intentionally integrate teaching about race into your overall parenting agenda.

Racial injustice is a problem for all of us. Just as it required collective responsibility to flatten the COVID-19 curve, addressing racial oppression, injustice, and inequality is all of our collective responsibility. Intentional Parenting for Equity and Justice is a tool to end systemic and interpersonal racism by raising all children’s consciousness about the impact these systemic factors have on individuals’ health and wellbeing. Without this sort of approach, we, as social scientists, fear that traumatic and painful racial incidents will remain as entrenched as ever in the fabric of American life. Parents need to be part of the solution, recognizing that silence and inaction sustain systems of racial injustice.

The post Talking to children about racism: Breaking the cycle of bias and violence starts at home appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

The overall sensitivity of the fathers during play in this sample of 312 families – 119 African American fathers and 193 Latino fathers – was high.

A research study focusing on low-income Latino and African American fathers in the USA has found a correlation between how sensitively they play with their preschool children and their children’s math achievement scores in kindergarten. This correlation exists irrespective of the level of mothers’ sensitive support for these children.

The researchers’ combined various aspects into their measure of sensitive play:following the child’s lead in what the child wants to play with, responding positively to the child’s behaviors and language, and helping the child when needed. 

Overall in this sample of 312, fathers’ sensitivity during play was high. In all the families selected for the research, the father lived in the child’s home. (This means the research is not fully representative of fathers’ contributions in all family formations.)

The correlation was found between sensitive play and kindergarten math achievement only; there was no correlation with reading achievement.

According to the researchers, “Early childhood intervention programs focused on parenting skills too often focus almost exclusively on mothers and neglect the importance of involving fathers.” They argue that the results of this play study show that supporting fathers can lead to better academic achievement at school. But they caution that “involving fathers in early childhood programs will require innovative delivery models that accommodate the needs and preferences of fathers.”

Much research shows a link between preschool parenting and early school academic achievement. Parental sensitivity can buffer the negative effects of the kinds of risks that are more prevalent in the environments where many ethnic minority families live. 

The great majority of research on this link focuses on mothers, but evidence is growing that fathers also play an important role. The role of a father is particularly important when the mother is unsupportive of the children: supportive fathering is associated with higher school readiness in children whose mothers are unsupportive.

One problem in the research is that measures of parental sensitivity tend to be designed to capture how mothers care for children. Such measures may not capture important aspects of how fathers interact with their children. On average, observations show, fathers care for their children differently from mothers, with more teasing, more physical play and risk taking, and the use of more challenging language.

The deficit in research regarding fathers is even stronger in relation to ethnic minority fathers. Some research adopts a ‘deficit perspective’, focusing on the problems of ethnic minority fatherhood such as father absence. Yet research shows generally high levels of father contribution: one study found that two–thirds of fathers in a racially diverse study read to their toddler at least once a week.

To understand parenting in ethnic minority families, we must take into account the environmental conditions that such families experience—for example, high rates of poverty and confronting racism and prejudice. Such environmental factors can require a different parenting approach to prepare the child for a different world. For example, the “no nonsense” parenting style seen in some African American families may be a necessary protective factor for the children and can be associated with high levels of warmth.

In this research project, involving 119 African American and 193 Latino fathers (mostly Mexican), the children were observed and videoed at play, first with their fathers and then their mothers. When the child was 2.5 years old, each parent was given three bags with toys in them to open and play with their child over 15 minutes. This process was repeated when the child was 3.5 years old (but with only two bags and for only 10 minutes). Later, in kindergarten, the child was tested for academic achievement in both math and language.

The post When Latino and African American fathers play sensitively with their toddlers, performance in math is likely to be higher at kindergarten appeared first on Child and Family Blog.