David Brooks writes, in the Times, about Walter Mischel's classic marshmallow test, the one in which 4-year olds were left alone with a marshmallow and told that if they could wait until the tester came back, they could have two. The children were video taped and Mischel reported that those who were able to exercise self-control, distract themselves and wait for the marshmallows went on to achieve higher SAT scores and better lives all around. The problem is this, however. Brooks uses this outcome to pummel educators and public policy makers who want to reduce poverty, improve test scores by reducing class size, increase teacher pay and mandate universal day care. Amazing that a simple marshmallow could be conflated into so much bullshit.
Brooks goes on, however, to contradict himself when he says: "The ability to delay gratification, like most skills, correlates with socioeconomic status and parenting styles," and he cites Jonathan Haidt's "The Happiness Hypothesis" that asserts the "creating stable, predictable environments for children, in which good behavior pays off. . ." is what "works."
In my mind, a stable, predictable environment just might include at least the following: safe and affordable housing (not relocating every 3-4 months), enough healthy food to eat, heat and water that doesn't get cut off every winter, basic health care so that the emergency room isn't the only time a child sees a doctor, clean air--so that poor children who have the highest incidents of asthma can spend a few more days in school, a good job--so Mom and Dad don't both have to work two jobs just to make ends meet. Universal day care--as high quality as our military training.
We might also increase teacher pay so that some of the best and brightest will go into teaching and stay there. (I'm a teacher and I've never made enough money to support a family of four above poverty level--and sadly, I don't recommend it to young people.) Most teachers leave after 5 years--and no wonder. We get tired of not being respected or listened to--simply because we've chosen to do the impossible--educate children in a society that doesn't respect knowledge at all--only dollars. Years and years of solid research (on bi-lingual education, class size, writing skills, reading, etc.) is dismissed in a right-wing wave and a sneer. Our textbooks, when we get them, are sanitized and sugercoat history. We have to spend our own money! Americans fund schools with property taxes and so the children who need the most help, get the least. And this is justice? Every poor child left behind--along with their schools.
Brooks dismisses these "structural reforms" that we "obsess over. . ." and accuses educators and policy makers of ignoring the "moral and psychological traits that are at the heart of actual success." These traits, however, can be learned in a stable, predictable environment--one in which a child knows he will be fed, he will be sleeping in his own bed, and that someone who is being well compensated for vital work will be tucking him in. There are other countries that have figured this out--but we're still busy playing the blame game. We expect 3- year olds to have "personal responsibility" without giving them the tools--and we punish them by pointing to the exceptions. . . and their considerable bootstraps.
