"Jeynes’ most stunning finding, and his most consistent, is that if a Black or Hispanic student is raised in a religious home with two biological parents the achievement gap totally disappears—even when adjusting for socioeconomic status."
This point about adjusting for economic status is very interesting. When I taught high school, I noticed a big difference in performance based on SES, regardless of race, so I felt we needed to focus more on that. But this research removes SES as a factor. My next thought has to do with the points Steven Pinker makes in The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, which deals with the heritability of many qualities separate from upbringing and how success can be influenced by genes. Lastly, as noted, many of us who grew up without fathers (mine died three months before I was born so my mom raised three kids on her own), know that success is possible but that it takes a lot of work by that single parent to overcome all the obstacles. As usual, you've given me a lot to think about! Thank you.
Harriett, I really appreciated your response—especially how you wove in your own story. It resonated deeply. I’m a single mom by choice to an incredibly smart 12-year-old girl, and I’ve worked my butt off to make sure she has every opportunity to succeed. Like your mom, I’ve tried to show my daughter that with love, structure, and a lot of hard work, success is possible. And I have every confidence she’ll thrive—however and whenever she chooses to build a family of her own.
I also wholeheartedly agree with your point about SES. In my work with schools, I’ve seen that same difference play out across classrooms—regardless of race. It’s real, and it shapes so much of what we see day to day with students.
The line that gave me pause in the original article was this one:
"And maybe—just maybe—the field can overcome its reluctance to share with students what research so clearly shows will benefit them and the children they will have in the future."
While I absolutely believe in sharing research and holding high expectations, I’ve also seen how easily students can internalize the idea that their family—especially if it doesn’t match a certain model—is somehow “less than.” That kind of messaging, even when unintentional, can do real harm.
I keep coming back to this: research should guide us, but it should never speak louder than compassion or erase the power of what’s already working in a child’s life.
Is it compassionate to deny kids the good role modeling and scientific facts that can create successful family life?
I agree that the truth can sometimes create some angst for people…. So should we avoid teaching the facts?
I’m convinced that average middle class kids with plenty of healthy intact families (married mom and dad) will figure out family life with little direct instruction from schools.
But ones who are most injured by our fear to offend or hurt feelings are not the privileged middle or upper class students. We are systematically depriving the poverty-stricken kids with single parents who are surrounded by dysfunctional families. They have virtually NO healthy role models! They grow up mystified, confused, and bereft of the explicit teaching and examples needed for successful parenting and marriages. Because we don’t want to hurt their feelings.
Do we not teach the harms of drug abuse because family members are addicted?
Do we not teach the science of digestion and exercise because their parents are obese?
Do we avoid teaching the harms of cigarettes because parents are chain smokers?
Do we not teach the harms of racism because family members might own a confederate flag?
We must teach the truth and manifest faith in our kids who, like your daughter, are intelligent and can develop resilience by dealing with reality.
We see this differently, and that’s okay. I just believe that unhealthy role models can be found in all kinds of families—single-parent, two-parent, wealthy, or poor—and that healthy, loving ones exist in all of those too. Which is what makes this so complicated.
Exactly right. This is why my organization, Yorktown Foundation for Public Policy, has started a private scholarship program to get children into Catholic schools in Virginia.
We should also be aggressively pursuing policies that incentivize fatherhood. YFPP is also pushing legislation in Virginia that will create environments where fatherhood is encouraged and modeled. Concepts that explicitly push fatherhood are great; concepts that use the market to prioritize fatherhood might be even better.
"Jeynes’ most stunning finding, and his most consistent, is that if a Black or Hispanic student is raised in a religious home with two biological parents the achievement gap totally disappears—even when adjusting for socioeconomic status."
This point about adjusting for economic status is very interesting. When I taught high school, I noticed a big difference in performance based on SES, regardless of race, so I felt we needed to focus more on that. But this research removes SES as a factor. My next thought has to do with the points Steven Pinker makes in The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, which deals with the heritability of many qualities separate from upbringing and how success can be influenced by genes. Lastly, as noted, many of us who grew up without fathers (mine died three months before I was born so my mom raised three kids on her own), know that success is possible but that it takes a lot of work by that single parent to overcome all the obstacles. As usual, you've given me a lot to think about! Thank you.
Harriett, I really appreciated your response—especially how you wove in your own story. It resonated deeply. I’m a single mom by choice to an incredibly smart 12-year-old girl, and I’ve worked my butt off to make sure she has every opportunity to succeed. Like your mom, I’ve tried to show my daughter that with love, structure, and a lot of hard work, success is possible. And I have every confidence she’ll thrive—however and whenever she chooses to build a family of her own.
I also wholeheartedly agree with your point about SES. In my work with schools, I’ve seen that same difference play out across classrooms—regardless of race. It’s real, and it shapes so much of what we see day to day with students.
The line that gave me pause in the original article was this one:
"And maybe—just maybe—the field can overcome its reluctance to share with students what research so clearly shows will benefit them and the children they will have in the future."
While I absolutely believe in sharing research and holding high expectations, I’ve also seen how easily students can internalize the idea that their family—especially if it doesn’t match a certain model—is somehow “less than.” That kind of messaging, even when unintentional, can do real harm.
I keep coming back to this: research should guide us, but it should never speak louder than compassion or erase the power of what’s already working in a child’s life.
Is it compassionate to deny kids the good role modeling and scientific facts that can create successful family life?
I agree that the truth can sometimes create some angst for people…. So should we avoid teaching the facts?
I’m convinced that average middle class kids with plenty of healthy intact families (married mom and dad) will figure out family life with little direct instruction from schools.
But ones who are most injured by our fear to offend or hurt feelings are not the privileged middle or upper class students. We are systematically depriving the poverty-stricken kids with single parents who are surrounded by dysfunctional families. They have virtually NO healthy role models! They grow up mystified, confused, and bereft of the explicit teaching and examples needed for successful parenting and marriages. Because we don’t want to hurt their feelings.
Do we not teach the harms of drug abuse because family members are addicted?
Do we not teach the science of digestion and exercise because their parents are obese?
Do we avoid teaching the harms of cigarettes because parents are chain smokers?
Do we not teach the harms of racism because family members might own a confederate flag?
We must teach the truth and manifest faith in our kids who, like your daughter, are intelligent and can develop resilience by dealing with reality.
We see this differently, and that’s okay. I just believe that unhealthy role models can be found in all kinds of families—single-parent, two-parent, wealthy, or poor—and that healthy, loving ones exist in all of those too. Which is what makes this so complicated.
Thank-you for your kind response. Life is indeed complex.
Exactly right. This is why my organization, Yorktown Foundation for Public Policy, has started a private scholarship program to get children into Catholic schools in Virginia.
We should also be aggressively pursuing policies that incentivize fatherhood. YFPP is also pushing legislation in Virginia that will create environments where fatherhood is encouraged and modeled. Concepts that explicitly push fatherhood are great; concepts that use the market to prioritize fatherhood might be even better.
Spot on Todd. It makes me think, what else we can do in public policy, even outside of education, to encourage and strengthen families.?