This book is also data-intensive and primarily focused on the role of “community” in driving divergent opportunities for lower socioeconomic status (SES) versus higher SES children. Five chapters focus on the American Dream, Families, Parenting, Schooling and Community before a final chapter on why we should care and what we might do. The author provides paired case studies of higher (top 1/3rd) and lower (bottom 1/3rd) SES families in his hometown of Port Clinton, Ohio (near Toledo), Bend, OR, Atlanta, Orange County, CA and Philadelphia to illustrate how the various factors interact and apply.

The author chooses to frame his story under the heading of upward mobility or equal opportunity because this is a very widely held American value with supporters in both political parties. His liberal/Democratic party bias shows in various places, but his mastery of the data, case studies and sequencing make this a powerful book describing how American communities, families, kids and neighborhoods were actually functioning in 2015 contrasted with those in 1955-75.

In summary, the reduction in community activities documented in Bowling Alone is mostly felt by the bottom half of the SES groups. Poor/poverty class, working class and middle-class families have been very negatively impacted by both lower absolute and relative economic opportunity and weaker community support, while professional, upper middle and wealthy class families have maintained economic and community resources to guide their children to positive outcomes. Upward mobility in the US has fallen as income and wealth inequality have increased, leading to greater divisions in society, lower trust, weaker institutions and polarized politics.

Putnam tries not to shout, but the clear implication is that American civilization, per se, is at risk! If one-third or one-half or two-thirds of Americans do not benefit widely from social institutions, choose to not participate in them, lose trust in their neighbors, fail to raise their children and turn to populist political candidates for solutions, The American Dream is at risk. The author does quietly note that the measurements of intergenerational mobility lag by 20 years, so what we are seeing today is somewhat based upon the social, economic, political and economic conditions of the late 1990s. The next two decades of community, institution and parent formation have already taken place and shaped childhood development.

“Sociologists”, like Dr Putnam, are often commingled with “socialists” and other leftwing political groups in the public mind; and the profession is clearly leftward leaning in universities today. However, the discipline also has an inherent rightwing slant. Sociologists devote their time to analyzing the roles of community, family, kin, religion, neighborhood, voluntary groups, institutions, unions, employers, political parties and other groups on human behavior. The focus is on the group as a counterweight to the purely individualist, commercial, scientific, rational, transactional, computing, materialist conceptions of human beings. Classical conservatives have often tried to “conserve” the delivered group history, traditions, culture, value, art and institutions (civilization) of the past against the various progressive, experimental, enlightened proposals of liberals. A successful civilization must have successful groups and institutions.

As my 1972 high school general business teacher, Mr. Dunlap, often said, “we have much, much to do today”.

The American Dream

The 1950’s can be improperly idealized, but the contrast between 1950’s and 2010 Port Clinton, Ohio shows massive changes in economic opportunities and living conditions between the “haves” and the “have nots”. The author compares the top and bottom one-third of society using case studies and data. For data slices, he typically uses educational achievement, comparing high school graduates or less education groups with college degree achieved groups. His home village of 7,000 is between Toledo and Cleveland on the shores of Lake Erie, not far from the site of fictional Winesburg, Ohio. The small town thrived with manufacturing, fishing, farming, mining and government sites in the post-WW II era, but declined quickly after the 1970’s except for the addition of a string of lakeside second homes. Relatively small income and status differences, school and activity mingling between classes and widespread economic and educational advances characterized the 1950s. By the 2010’s, the poor had become poorer and the wealthy were of a different economic stratum, with less formal institutional support, class intermixing or intermarriage, informal mentoring or upward mobility.

Don 1959 – working class upbringing, dad worked 2 jobs, mom a homemaker, neither parent HS grad, top 1/4th academically, sports star, local minister guided him to liberal arts college, became a minister, married a high school teacher and his daughter became a librarian. Emphasis on economic and social stability of home life, assistance of community in upward mobility.

Frank 1959 – son of local business owner (fishing) and college educated mom from Chicago, lived 4 blocks from Don, modest school results, worked summers in family restaurant, not considered socially different even though dad was commodore at yacht club and mom “did charity work”, attended Ohio liberal arts college, played sports, worked as a journalist in Columbus for 25 years. Comparable results to Don.

1959 class – “we were poor, but we didn’t know it”. Of the parents, 5% held college degrees and one-third had not completed high school. Three-quarters of the high school graduates obtained more education than their parents. Half of the children of high school dropouts went to college. Absolute and relative upward mobility was high. On average, the children of the class of 1959 (1980s HS grads) equaled their parents in educational attainment but did not exceed them.

Libby 1959 – one of 10 children born to farmer/craftsman and homemaker without HS degrees. Parents actively involved at school. English teacher helped Libby attend U Toledo, but she dropped out of freshman year to marry hometown boy and become a homemaker. Divorced 20 years later, Libby worked as a clerk, writer and manager before winning a countywide political seat which she held for 30 years. Male and female opportunities and participation were quite similar for this cohort through joining college, but only 22% of women completed degrees versus 88% of men.

Jesse and Cheryl 1959 – only two black graduates out of 150. Families had moved from the South, dads worked in manufacturing and mining, moms worked as maids. Jesse excelled in sports, served as student council president, attended college on a sports scholarship, earned master’s degree in education and served as a high school teacher. Cheryl was hardworking, academic achiever and class officer. She also earned a master’s degree and taught high school. Both families lived in the poorest parts of town. The students interacted with their classmates, but knew that there were limits for dating, travel and recreational activities. The students were guided/assisted by local adults to attend college. While race and gender restrictions have fallen since 1959 in the US, class-based differences in opportunity have increased.

1950’s and 1960’s forward to 2010- one-half of high school grads to college and one-half to work. 1,000 employee factory trimmed jobs, then closed in 1993. Army base and gypsum mines closed. Manufacturing fell from 55% to 25% of jobs. Real wage in 2012 was 16% below that of 1970. Population had grown by 50% from 1940-70, flattened through 1990, then dropped by 17% by 2010. 2010 juvenile delinquency rates 3 times national average, up from just average in 1980’s. Net departures of 30-39 year olds doubled from 13% in 1970’s to 27% in 2000’s. Single parent households doubled, divorce rate up 5X, unwed births doubled, child poverty up 4X. At the same time, second homes now covered 20 miles of the lake shore. Small town “rust belt” story has same social impact as large city “rust belt” stories.

Chelsea 2014 – lives on the lake, dad is a national sales manager, mom has graduate degree and does part-time special education work. They own a second home. Mom is very active in shaping kids’ school life, intervening, investing and coaching. Chelsea is “most active person” at school, leading many extracurricular activities. She attends a big 10 university and plans to become a lawyer.

David 2014 – dad a HS drop out, worked periodically in odd jobs, imprisoned, angry, many women, drugs, moved from place to place. Mom moved out when David was preschooler. David has 9 step siblings. Finished HS through career classes. Juvenile detention record begins with age 13 store break-ins and continues for drug and alcohol violations. Lived with dad and grandparents at different times. Passed each grade, but never engaged in school. Worked in retail, factory and landscaping. Became a father at 18, did not marry, shares custody of child. Invests time helping his stepsiblings. Wants further education but has no plans. Bitter that community did not help him through his childhood when it was clear that his imprisoned dad and absent mom were incapable of raising him.

Equality of income and wealth is different from equality of opportunity and social mobility. The first is widely discussed in the media and rising inequality bemoaned by many. However, proposed government initiatives to address it, especially income or wealth transfers, are hotly debated by the two main political parties. While this form of inequality and changes in it clearly impacts equality of opportunity, the author focuses on the second measure.

“Do youth coming from different social and economic backgrounds in fact have roughly equal life chances, and has that changed in recent decades?” “A bedrock American principle is the idea that all individuals should have the opportunity to succeed on the basis of their own effort, skill and ingenuity” according to Fed chair Ben Bernanke. Faith in equal rights is embedded in the American founding documents and stories, American history, especially due to the growing economy of the US across more than two centuries. The Horatio Alger story of “rags to riches” has been told since formal public education began in the US in the 1840’s. Public opinion surveys from the 1940s through the 1980’s recorded an American public that believed that they and their children could pursue The American Dream with confidence.

95% of Americans repeatedly endorse equality of opportunity – “everyone in America should have an equal opportunity to get ahead”.

3 stages. 1875-1945, less inequality of wealth and income, growth of wealth and income, modest equality of opportunity for non-minority men. 1945-75, much less inequality of wealth and income, rapid economic growth, strong absolute growth of opportunities for all and very open opportunities for economic growth and social mobility. 1975-2015, intermittent periods of economic growth, increased inequality of wealth and income, limited absolute economic opportunity and sharply reduced relative economic opportunity and social mobility. The contrast between 1959 and the post-Great Recession 2010 highlights the very different economic and social environments.

Income inequality within each racial/ethnic group increased from 1967-2011.

From 1979-2005, real after-tax income for bottom 1/5th up $1,000; for middle 1/5th up $9,000; for top 1% up $750,000.

From 1980-2012, real earnings of college educated males rose 35%, while high school graduates lost 11% and high school dropouts fell 22%.

From 1992-2013, real wealth of high school graduates or less education remained in $150-175,000 range while wealth of college graduates increased from $600-700,000 range to $1.1 million range. A 3.5 to 1 ratio increased to 6 to 1 in 20 years.

Neighborhoods are more clearly sorted into high, middle and low income. Between 1970 and 2009, high-income neighborhoods doubled from 15% to 30% of the total while low-income neighborhoods increased by one-half, from 20% to 30% of the total, leaving middle-income neighborhoods to shrink from 65% to 40%.

Neighborhood segregation drives educational segregation. In large cities, “neighborhood schools” policies ensure that lower and higher income groups mix less. Within schools, top third SES students disproportionately enroll in advanced tracks and complete AP courses. These differences have even greater disproportionate effects on college attendance, college graduations and especially selective college admissions.

Clustering in neighborhoods, schools and colleges leads to “assortive mating”, with higher SES students marrying each other much more often than in the post WW II era when interactions between the classes were more common. Combining all of these factors leads to extended families and kinship networks that are largely or solely comprised of similar SES people, further reducing the interaction of Americans from different walks of life.

Putnam notes that absolute mobility, completing more education, earning more and holding higher level positions than your parents, is the primary component of “upward mobility” in history. The growth of economies, movement to new locations, development of new industries, technologies and professions does tend to benefit many across society. Relative upward mobility, with the lower classes moving ahead (education, income, jobs) faster than the upper classes, is not as a big a driver because it is less common in history, and even when it occurs it does not mean than bus drivers and surgeons change places, only that bus drivers’ daughters become transportation analysts while surgeons’ daughters become pharmacists.

The social scientist standard measure of mobility compares the income or education of a 30-40 year old with their parents at 30-40 years old, assuming that lifetime career success is largely settled at this age. Putnam asks the reader to not wait for the high school graduates of 2005 to be measured in 2020 but instead to look at their situations in 2005 and project the results, adding urgency to the time period in which absolute and relative mobility have been so much below that experienced after WW II.

2. Families

Putnam next focuses on the rapidly growing mid-sized town of Bend, Oregon, a largely white representative of prosperous western towns driven by their outdoors assets. The logging industry has been replaced by tourism, retirees and second homes. Area population is up from 30,000 to 165,000 between 1970 and 2013. Per capita income is up 50% in one decade. Usual side effects of rapid growth are seen. Wealth is made in real estate and construction. But, even in this growing environment, income inequality has widened by 75%. Poor neighborhoods are clustered on the east side of town.

Andrew – 2015. Parents from modest middle-class backgrounds near Bend. Dad Earl a fair student, graduated from state college. Married classmate Patty, who left college. Earl worked as a stockbroker, Patty as a florist’s assistant. Earl moved into construction and built a solid business worth millions. Patty left work, had 2 kids and thrived as a homemaker. Children attended a new HS with 15% drop-out rate, contrasted with east-side HS with 50% drop-out rate. Parents focused on kids, school, building their marriage. Andrew lacked for little. Parents involved in school, activities and career steps. Andrew a modest student and not driven like dad, working towards a firefighting career. Feels secure in pursuing his future.

Kayla – 2015. Parents Darleen and Joe have both lead troubled lives. Darleen raised on a small ranch a few hours from Bend. Finished HS with modest record, worked in fast food and at a fuel station. Married by 20 with 2 kids to abusive man but left him. Met Joe in new job at Pizza Hut where he was the manager. Soon pregnant with Kayla. Joe’s father was mostly in prison while growing up, mom was an alcoholic who Joe helped from an early age. Experienced some structure and care in 6 years in a foster home. Dropped out of eighth grade. Cared for mom. Married at 18, 2 kids with drug abuser. Left woman, kept kids, moved back in with his mom and mom’s latest boyfriend. Met Darleen in Bend at Pizza Hut. Joe moved from job to job, unskilled, low wage. Kayla grew up with the 4 step-siblings. Always poor, little parental support for school or extras. Mom Darleen left with a new boyfriend when Kayla was 7, living across the west and becoming homeless. Kayla mostly lived with Joe but some of the time traveled with Darleen and her friend. Kayla has essentially lived “alone” due to limited prospects and parenting skills of Darleen and Joe. Kayla drifted in school, found some support in troubled youth and job corps programs and legally finished HS. Some school administrators helped Kayla with medical, counseling and educational support. She has taken some community college classes, has a new boyfriend who lives with her at Joe’s. Kayla is depressed and worried about her future but doesn’t know what to do.

The post WW II norm was a breadwinner dad and a homemaker mom. Relative stability. Modest income or extras, but owned home and settled in a neighborhood. Working- and middle-class wages were adequate to support this model. Only 4% of births were outside of marriage due to social norms and pressured marriages of new parents to be.

Family structure changed during the 1970’s. More divorce, more women working for pay, greater cohabitation, more unwed births resulting in more kids in single parent homes. These changes accelerated for decades. Birth control, feminist views, female job opportunities, working class male job insecurity and individualist, self-fulfillment norms all contributed to these major changes in expectations and actual family structures.

In time, the bottom half of the social classes continued to shun the traditional model, but the top half maintained a high rate of marriage, modest rate of divorce, delayed first births and raised kids in stable two-parent households. These women increased their college attendance rates and worked in higher skilled jobs before and after their children’s pre-school years.

Lower educated moms’ first birth age was relatively stable at 19-20 years from 1960-2010, but higher educated moms delayed child responsibilities from age 24 to age 30, providing time for dating, prospecting and cohabitating before marriage and maturing socially, completing education and career milestones before the responsibilities of motherhood.

Births to unmarried women with college degree completion status doubled from 5% to 10% between 1977 and 2007, making it still a relatively infrequent occurrence (1 in 10). For young mothers with high school credentials or less, the 1970’s rate was already much higher at 20% (1 in 5), but has grown consistently since then to more than 60% (approaching 2 in 3). This is a revolutionary change within the high school grad population — and between them and the college educated group.

By 2010, the high school graduates’ divorced percentage reached 28% versus 14% for the college graduates. Among the one-third of high school graduates who were married when their kids were born, 28% of the families experienced divorce.

Fathers with HS credentials are four times as likely to have children that do not live with them as fathers with college degrees.

The percentage of college educated families with children under age 7 lead by a single parent doubled from 5% to 10% between the 1950’s to 1970’s period and the 1990’s to 2010’s. It was a slightly higher 12% in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. The high school graduate lead families started at 20% in the early decades and has grown to more than 60%, the same pattern as births to unmarried women.

Lower education moms’ employment percentage grew from 18% to 32% between 1960 and 2010, a 70% increase. Higher education moms started at 20% in 1960 and rocketed up to almost 70% in the 1990’s — another gigantic change within this group and between the groups. In 1960, one in five moms worked throughout the classes. More lower education moms joined the paid work force, but more than two-thirds did not work in the 2010’s. More than two-thirds of college educated mothers rejoined the labor force, making that the usual situation for their peer group. On average, high paid college educated families have one and two-thirds earners while lower paid high school grad families have one and one-third earners, a further income difference of 20%, on average. Working moms today spend as much time with their kids as “stay at home” moms did in the 1970’s by cutting out other competing uses of time. Black Americans show this same split towards two-earner married couples at the top and single moms at the bottom. Recent immigrants and Hispanic families look more like the traditional model.

The two-tier model is driven by culture and economics. It is socially possible to have children without being, getting or remaining married. The social prohibitions against birth control, premarital relations, cohabitation and childbirth outside of marriage fell quickly and have little impact for most American today. Motherhood is open to young women irrespective of their economic, educational or social status and is considered a “good”. Young women can choose motherhood and romance over marriage and do so frequently in the lower half of society. Poor and working-class men today have relatively lower wealth, earnings, stability and prospects than their post WW II peers. Young women have greater economic resources and generally believe that marriage requires a solid economic foundation, so often choose to not make that commitment. For less well-off partners economic instability and risks prevent and threaten family stability. For fortunate partners their economic security reinforces family stability despite life’s challenges. This is an essential take-away. Economic differences are translated into social factors which magnify the different opportunities and security experienced by higher and lower income, wealth and education families.

Putnam does not believe that overly attractive welfare benefits play a major role in preventing or disrupting family formation. Technical studies show small effects. The overall change in structure is orders of magnitude larger than those effected by benefits. Welfare benefit policy changes do not correlate with the changes in family formation. Benefits do matter economically and have an impact, but this is not a primary driver of changes in family structure.

The social changes of the 1960’s and 1970’s and the overall trend towards a more secular public society and norms is correlated with the breakdown in family structure overall and for the lower SES groups. Putnam argues that correlation is not causation. The massive split between the top and bottom halves argues against this simple explanation. State and county level correlations indicate an opposite effect, with more rural and religious areas having even greater rates of family decay.

Policy choices in the 1980’s to criminalize drug infractions, increase sentences, reduce sentencing options and increase enforcement led to a five-fold incarceration rate increase between 1970 and 2000. Since young men account for 90% of offenses, this has directly removed many men from actual or prospective marriage. This is not the main driver of fragile families, but an aggravating factor.

The two-tier system has improved outcomes for the top half or two-thirds of society, with married two-income families devoting more time and money to a smaller number of children. The bottom one-quarter or one-third is increasingly comprised of single mother families with part-time, family or government support during the crucial preschool years followed by lower earnings thereafter, so their children receive less financial and social support throughout childhood and lower lifetime opportunities.

From a sociologist’s point of view, these are qualitative differences or “order of magnitude differences” not merely the “differences of degree” experienced in the post WW II period.

3. Parenting

Putnam uses metro Atlanta as the backdrop for this chapter. Fast growing, deep poverty, variety of suburbs, racially segregated, racially mixed in some suburbs, second largest number of African Americans in the US, second weakest upward mobility scores, northern transplants, income inequality within Black community, Black political power, highly educated Black population. But income/class differences have a large impact, perhaps more than race.

Simone, Carl and Desmond – 2015 – Mom Simone from New York City, upwardly mobile family, father a Merrill Lynch manager, mother a medical secretary, married 50 years, moved to New Jersey suburb. Simone earned BA industrial psychology at CUNY. Dad Carl born in Suriname to black and Dutch parents, moved to New York as a child. Dad worked for Alcoa, mom at UN. Dad built a warehousing business. Parents married 33 years. Close family, dinner table discussions, religion important, friends welcome. Simone and Carl met at CUNY, married, waited 5 years to start family per religious counselor’s advice. Simone worked as receptionist and paralegal before becoming at home mom. Carl is an IT manager, brings kids to work, shows role models, he advises them to be productive. Education a priority, in school, out of school, reading, flashcards, outings, activities, sports, music, diet choices. Parents shopped for schools, moved further out in NJ, then to Atlanta, chose HS first, then home. Chose diverse school district to prepare Desmond for world. Mom deeply involved in school activities. Sensitive and firm parenting style; claims never punished son. Dad emphasized autonomy. Religious faith, activities, interactions shaped Desmond’s friendships, activities and thinking. Family adapted to diabetes challenge. Racism acknowledged, but you “have to work a little bit harder”. Simone reflects that “you never stop parenting”. Desmond was top ranked HS student, in college, interning at CDC, moving forward on professional career path.

Stephanie, Lauren and Michelle – 2015 – Mom Stephanie a hardworking office manager in the hospitality industry, grew up in Detroit. Her alcoholic mom left her alcoholic father in Georgia, worked as an RN, lived with an alcoholic Chrysler factory worker. Stephanie grew up in middle class Detroit neighborhood but mixed with project kids, joined a gang, fought, went to juvenile detention center, suspended from school, barely completed grades, stole. Her mom died when Stephanie was 15, she moved in with an aunt who offered more structure and gained Stephanie’s respect. Left aunt and dropped out of 12th grade, moved to Atlanta, earned GED, got pregnant and married. Shared 4 children with her first husband. Caring for first child changed perspective to being responsible for her kids. Worked at fast food, supermarket, discount department store, earned promotions and living salary. Husband left, Stephanie married a forklift driver and has a good marriage with him but they keep financial responsibility for his kids and her 4 kids separate.

Stephanie has been a customer service manager for 15 years where she excels due to her social interaction skills and hard work. Her 4 kids were financially provided for. Mom tried to keep kids safe and used tough love parenting approach. You have to be hard, parents are in charge, not my children’s friend, kids need to be tough and know the world is tough, few conversations and hugs. Family moved twice to better neighborhoods to get further away from trouble. Some education support for kids in elementary and high school, financial support for community college. Eldest son is succeeding, challenging youngest son works at recycling center with his dad. Lauren is completing associates degree in counseling. Michelle dropped out of community college, had struggled with speech and reading in high school. Hopes to attend trade school and be a day care teacher. Currently at a pause in life, hanging out with HS drop out boyfriend. Stephanie claims that racism has never been an issue in her family’s life. Is proud that her kids are “respectable”.

Elijah -2015 – born in Germany to Army parents, mom left family when Elijah was 3, moved in with his grandparents in New Orleans projects. Saw and experienced violence frequently including shootings and murders. Taught by close cousin James how to be a burglar at age 7. James taught him to fight, be a thug and a bully. First re-encountered his dad at age 10, who had been in prison and fathering more children. Moved to Charleston, SC at age 10 to live with mom, then back to New Orleans for 2 years, then back to his mom, new boyfriend and year-old twins in Atlanta at 13. Elijah arrested for arson at age 14, beaten by his dad (moved to Atlanta) after he was bailed out. His father had become a “preacher” and tried to influence Elijah positively, but mom remained verbally abusive throughout his childhood. Elijah tried to reset his life several times after age 14, with limited success. He finished HS with much effort at age 19. He has lived with mom, dad or friends since high school. Worked. Stayed high. Focused on music. Stayed clean. Dreams of being a preacher or hip-hop hero. Influenced by religious teachings but still attracted to violence. Bagging groceries at Kroger, saving money for an apartment and school. Elijah is a survivor against the odds, just barely.

Child development. Experience + environment => neurological development.

Prenatal through early childhood environment => brain circuitry and capacity for empathy.

Contingent reciprocity = “serve and return” experiences matter most. Consistent and caring adult interaction. Development is a social experience.

Much early learning is preverbal but it drives later verbal and math skills.

Early learning also drives “executive functions”: concentration, impulse control, mental flexibility and working memory.

Intellectual and socioemotional development are intertwined. Soft skills may be as important as academic skills: grit, social sensitivity, optimism, self-control, conscientiousness and emotional stability.

Unstable or inconsistently responsive parenting, physical or emotional abuse, substance abuse and lack of affection produce negative neurological changes.

Individuals differ on their inherent resilience, but negative factors have negative effects on children.

Early childhood care drives cognitive and soft skills which drive school performance.

Parental income, education and class are closely correlated with healthy brain development. Differences emerge at very early ages and remain stable through life (on average), operating most strongly in the preschool years.

Dr. Spock’s “permissive parenting” has been replaced by “intensive parenting” in response to this new understanding, especially by higher income, education and social class parents. Concerted cultivation of children’s skills by both parents is the new norm replacing an earlier theory that natural growth by a child would be good enough.

High school graduates prioritize obedience above self-reliance in their children by 55% to 35%, while college graduates seek self-reliance above obedience by 55% to 25%. Upper class parents have adopted the new parenting approach faster than lower class parents.

Working class parents provide their children with a 3/2 ratio of encouragement to discouragement, while professional class parents offer 6/1 positive to negative feedback, consistent with the goal of creating autonomous young adults accustomed to making good decisions and choices. Putnam notes that these differences reflect historical parental experience and the need to help students in threatening environments survive.

Trends in the percentage of parents who say their family usually eats together also shows that college graduate parents are retaining their interactive style better than high school graduate parents, with the first group declining from 80% to 75% since the 1980’s while the second dropped from 77% to 65%. Both groups saw a decline in a busier time, but college educated parents preserved this family time better.

Personal spending on children for educational activities reflects this split as well. Families in the bottom one-third of incomes invested about $1,000 of real dollars per child annually in the 1970s through 2010. The eight decile (higher) income families increased their investment from $1,700 to $2,600 while the top decile families more than doubled their investments from $3,000 to $6,500.

High school graduate parents increased their time in developmental childcare from 35 minutes to 75 minutes per day between 1990 and 2010 while college graduate parents surged from 50 minutes to 130 minutes per day. In rough terms, both groups doubled their investment, but the lower educated parents went from a half-hour to an hour while the greater educated parents moved from an hour to two hours, further increasing the care giving gap.

For their 4-6 year old children, college educated moms chose professional day care 70% of the time versus high school educated moms who “chose” it 40% of the time. Similar differences exist for younger children and for the availability of formal pre-K education.

Parenting differs significantly between American social classes and these differences drive large differences in child development, educational results and preparation for careers and life.

4. Schooling

Putnam next focuses on Orange County, CA, once the epicenter of suburban (and Republican) America. The county kept growing from its early 1960’s rise to prominence reaching 3 million people as the sixth most populous county in the nation. Its demographics have changed. 46% speak a language other than English at home. Latino immigrants account for almost one-half of K-12 students. Within the county, incomes and demographics vary widely. The author contrasts Santa Ana at $17,000 per capita income (95% Latino) with Fullerton at $100,000 per capita income (25% Latino). He compares the school districts and shows that school resources (inputs) are similar but outputs diverge. 65% vs 20% take the SAT test and score 1917 versus 1285. Top 10% versus bottom 20% on California standardized tests. 2% versus 33% truancy rate.

Clara, Ricardo and Isabella – 2015 – mom Clara and dad Ricardo grew up in an LA ghetto in the 1970’s. Both managed to attend college and then graduate, Clara advancing through a social work and counseling career and Ricardo succeeding as an architect and project manager. Clara’s first marriage failed and she managed as a single mom of one son in her late twenties. She married Ricardo before turning 30. Clara’s Mexican parents moved to LA during WWII and settled their family in Watts. Clara and her brother recall racial strains, good family and school support. Their family moved away from the poorer parts of town twice. Clara noted “We’re pretty Mexican at home, but at work we’re totally Americanized”.

When Isabella reached school age, her family also moved further from the poor neighborhoods and cities to Fullerton, noted for its university and high school excellence. Clara researched schools in depth before their move and continued as a highly involved parent, ensuring that her daughter was always engaged in learning. Troy HS in Fullerton is a public magnet school and ranked among the 100 “best” in the US. The environment is “pressure cooker”, but the kids complement their long hours of homework with extracurricular activities. Both parents helped with homework reviews. SAT prep classes are common. Parents easily raise money to support activities. School counselors and parents guided the college application and choice process. Isabella chose to attend a California university to “save money”, while her brother attended an Ivy League school.

Lola and Sofia – 2015 – The young ladies’ birth mom was drug addicted, a gang member and prisoner, dying when they were 10 and 2 years old. Their different fathers were also drug addicts and gang members. One disappeared altogether and one lives in Orange County but played no role in their lives. They were raised by their grandmother (mom’s mom) and step-grandfather in a solid working-class neighborhood in Santa Ana. The girls claim “we had the normal suburban life”. Grandma died when they were 14 and 6. Step-grandad continued to live with them until they were 19 and 11 before moving out, but allowed them to stay in the house and supported them financially. Lola became the “mom” for her sister before starting high school. She dropped out as a junior and eventually completed her GED. She works as a clerk in a discount clothing store.

Both girls had positive stories about elementary school but horror stories about high school. Gangs, disengaged teachers, no academics, no extracurricular options except for a few “honors” students, fights and shootings. Lola persevered and moved Sofia into a remedial “continuation school” for her last two years and she flourished in this “guided” independent study program mostly done at home. Sofia passed the California graduation test and attends the local community college in a teacher-training program, but many obstacles remain to obtaining a professional position.

Putnam uses his statistical approach to answer interrelated questions about public schools. He concludes that different schools provide very different environments and results, but that the different resources, teachers and academic programs have less impact on results than the differing financial and class backgrounds of the students who attend and the support of their parents. He believes that some school changes could improve results to help less advantaged students to compete and thrive.

The achievement gap between low- and high-income students is one-third wider in 2000 than it was in 1975. This is equal to several years of extra schooling. The class gap has been growing within racial groups while it has been narrowing between racial groups. Putnam takes great steps throughout the text explaining how measuring results within racial groups to support his claims that “class” is very important in no way should be seen as saying that differences across race are unimportant or that racism does not play a role in equal opportunity or social mobility. Research finds that gaps in school achievement at age 6 are essentially the same as at age 18 when compared by the mother’s level of educational achievement. Schools don’t seem to narrow or expand these differences. Again, Dr. Putnam walks a fine line. As much as he might like to criticize lower SES schools for their “less” effective programs and results, he must recognize that schools start with students of a given level of preparation, support, habits and expectations and might not be expected to deliver greater results for lower SES kids than for their higher SES counterparts. On the other hand, given their lower academic skills at the start of any school year, it ought to be possible to help some students to learn more than the usual “one year” of progress.

Residential sorting accounts for the differential results by school. Higher and lower SES pupils increasingly live in different neighborhoods and attend different school districts and schools. Higher SES parents have the information and resources to move into the more highly rated school zones, leaving lower SES parents and their children behind. Dr. Putnam acknowledges that “school choice” can have a positive impact for lower SES students who attend higher SES schools, but notes that the evidence is weak and that lower SES parents are not as skilled at identifying the best choices. Putnam cites research that shows that poor kids achieve significantly more in high-income schools, supporting his argument that class is at least as important as income or race in determining student results.

School funding per pupil is equal or subsidizes poorer districts in most states today. Student-teacher ratios and salaries are similar. Putnam suggests that a form of “teacher sorting” explains some of the different program quality across schools and school districts, citing higher turnover rates in lower rated districts as a result of more motivated teachers leaving them and moving to higher rated districts. He recommends investing more money in better teachers to improve results in lower SES programs.

However, the main takeaway is that what students bring to school with them matters most: skills, habits, expectations, curriculum demands, English language skills, medical diagnosis and care, parenting structures, encouragement, drugs, stress, disorder, parents, support, involvement, volunteers, fundraising, networks, etc. “Whom you go to school with matters a lot”. Peer pressure from students and parents complement the efforts of teachers. The “distractions”, discipline and make-up work required in low SES schools reduces the hours teachers invest in teaching.

Assignment of students to main/advanced academic tracks is less common today. Historically, it provided some advantages to higher SES kids who disproportionately qualified for the highest track. Most remaining schools with tracks do identify “higher potential” students from lower SES backgrounds. Schools with and without tracking show insignificant differences in social mobility.

Private school attendance has declined from 10% to 8% of students in the last two generations. The gap in private school attendance between college educated (10%) and high school educated (5%) families has remained the same. Private schools disproportionately benefit higher SES children, but no more today than earlier.

Differences in extracurricular activities offered, participation and leadership roles stand out when lower- and higher-SES schools and students are compared. Research links this participation to the development of soft-skills, education and career success. Five-sixths (86%) of top-quartile SES students participate in activities while only two-thirds (66%) of lowest-quartile students do so, down from a 77% participation rate in the 1970’s and 1980’s. High-poverty schools offer half as many team sports as low-poverty schools. Average and low-income school districts increasingly require “pay to play” funding for more expensive programs while higher income districts pay the fees or convince booster clubs to raise the money for all students.

American high school graduation rates rose throughout the twentieth century from 6% to 80% in 1970. Graduation rates in 1930 and 1950 favored the financially well-to-do, but closed through time to near 100% graduation rates at the top and 75% graduation rates for the poorest quartile by the year 2000. Solid progress. However, GED’s make-up one out of eight (12%) high school credentials and are clearly not the equivalent of a traditional high school diploma. Students with GED’s have some career doors opened, but GED holders have lower career results. Some of the progress in HS completion is real while some is unclear.

Economic, education and career standards have advanced in the last century. A high school diploma is not what it once was. The college degree wage bonus was 50% in 1980, but nearly 100% in 2008.

Rates of high school completion, college application and enrollment have converged in the last half century, with 45% of lower-SES students enrolling in college versus 90% of higher-SES students. Lower-SES students disproportionately enroll in community colleges and “for-profit” schools which have very low completion rates. Lower-SES students have lower graduation rates within 4-year colleges. Their low acceptance into selective colleges is even more disproportionate.

In 2012, 45% of the lower-SES students enrolled in college but only 12% completed degrees, while 90% of higher-SES students enrolled and 58% finished. Twice as many higher-SES students started degree programs, but more than four times as many finished. About one-third of higher SES students had not yet completed degrees within 8 years, while almost three-fourths of lower SES students had not reached their goal.

The gaps in college degree completion by family income have widened throughout the period. Lower-SES students increased from a 5% to a 10% graduation rate. Lower-middle SES students increased from 10% to 16%. The above-middle group improved from 16% to 33%. Higher SES students doubled their completion rate like the others, from 40% to 80%. In ratio terms, things are the same! But 80% versus 10% is clearly a wider gap than 40% versus 5%.

A final comparison shows that test scores play a role in achievement, but less of a role than family income. For the lower-SES quartile, degree completion improves from 3% to 8% to 29% for low, middle and high-test score students. For top-SES quartile students the comparable figures are 30%, 51% and 74%. A middle test score student of low means has an 8% chance of earning a degree (1/12) while a comparable student of high financial means has 50% odds (1/2). A high-test score student of the lowest financial quartile has essentially the same odds of college graduation as a low-test score student from an advantaged family (29-30%).

5. Community

The author turns to Philadelphia, a large and historically important city for America’s upper and working classes. He selects a pair of single moms with two daughters each for his biographical sketches. Like Port Clinton, Philadelphia had a long history of stable manufacturing jobs and mixed class white neighborhoods in the post WWII era, providing opportunities for upward mobility to children in all classes. The loss of manufacturing jobs and aging of housing, infrastructure and institutions lead to a break down of the formerly stable culture after the 1970’s.

Marnie, Eleanor and Madeline – 2015 – mom Marnie was raised in Beverly Hills and lived in suburban Philadephia for most of her adult life, daughter of an alcoholic film producer and wife who divorced and remarried three times. Marnie was academically gifted and despite her home turmoil earned an economics degree and MBA from Ivy League schools. The girls’ father earned similar professional credentials, succeeded as an entrepreneur, but when his business failed a dozen years later, he became depressed, was divorced by Marnie and moved “out West” when the daughters were in middle school.

Marnie worked for a consulting firm after graduate school. She struck out as an independent consultant, after her husband melted down, in order to maintain the lifestyle to which she and her daughters had become accustomed. She succeeded financially and despite a demanding work and travel schedule was able to raise her girls with the help of several caretakers. The daughters were distraught by the divorce and loss of their dad and absence of their mom. Private schools, boarding school, tutors and counselors were used to supplement mom and the caretakers. The daughters had challenges with drugs, sex, motivation and status but were supported by mom and her network of adult friends. Eleanor is majoring in business at a Midwest university while Madeline is pursuing French and International Development concentrations at a Canadian university.

Molly, Lisa and Amy – 2015 – mom Molly has lived in the inner-city Kensington neighborhood her whole life following earlier generations of her family. After her father’s death when she was young, the nine children in her family were placed in foster homes. She was placed in an orphanage for six years. She returned to her mother’s home as a teen but basically raised herself. She became pregnant in twelfth grade and dropped out of high school. Molly married and had a second child, Lisa, but her marriage ended in a few years as dad was an alcoholic and drug addict. Molly supported her family as a waitress and a construction worker for a decade. She had Amy and another child with a man who worked as a roofer, but he too became hooked on drugs and left to become a homeless neighbor.

Molly suffered additional injuries: multiple sclerosis and a stroke, restricting her to a wheelchair. Her youngest son was autistic and required extensive medical help. She did her best to use public welfare programs to get by but suffered from depression. A local church helped her with counseling, housing and programs.

Lisa was damaged by her poverty and parents’ woes. She struggled in school and to make and keep friends. She skipped school often, drank and used drugs. She became pregnant in twelfth grade with a local drug dealer but refused to marry him. She married another boy (John) from her church and lived with his alcoholic family. The church helped John find a job and the couple find an apartment. John finished high school but dropped out of community college. Lisa did graduate from high school and attended a for profit school to earn a pharmacy technician degree but has never worked in this field despite incurring $50,000 of debt.

Amy showed early promise in music and made some solid steps forward during middle and high school. She too fell for alcohol, drugs and boys. Due to cheating and truancy, she was expelled, was home schooled and then returned to public school. She became pregnant in tenth grade. She moved to a “pregnant moms” high school and excelled academically with the extra support provided to her. She has not married. She plans to attend a college with special programs for young moms.

Both families faced challenges. Marnie had enough personal, financial and community assets to guide her daughters to success. Amy lacked these support systems but was able to leverage public school, agency and church resources to help her daughters barely survive their difficult circumstances.

“Social capital” is used to refer to an asset in parallel with financial and human capital assets. It is the social connectedness held by an individual – who they know and what help they can be as mentors, advisors, guarantors, examples, insurers, job leads, system navigators, friends, trusted people, offering a sense of belonging and community, etc. Social capital provides economic and personal benefits. Research ties it to health, happiness, educational and career success, public safety and child welfare. Sociologists have made it a primary focus of their studies for more than a century documenting how migration, urbanization, globalization, family structures, work environments, neighborhoods, social institutions, social norms, religious practices, diversity and homogeneity effect people. In general, sociologists bemoan the loss of small-scale cohesion that existed in an earlier time replaced by large scale cities, secular ethics and a materialist, transactional culture. As noted above, sociologists tend to lean leftward politically, but much of the content of their work focuses on the human dimension that many political conservatives try to preserve or revive.

More educated individuals have more close friends and more contacts. Their friends and contact networks cover a wider range of classes, industries, professions and institutions. More educated individuals are able to leverage these networks as needed and provide reciprocal help to others when approached. The advantage in close friends is only 15-20%, but the informal network advantage ranges from 25-100%. The smaller and weaker networks of less educated parents, even when there is a married couple, provide less support to children in the key high school years when they are making the transition to career training and education. The children have met fewer people, in fewer places, mostly of lower professional levels. Their parents know fewer people and their teachers and counselors are less likely to plug the gap. Formal mentoring programs can help, but their availability and duration make them partial replacements even for the students with such support. Informal mentors and contacts can also help to guide students regarding social choices – drugs, alcohol, sex, church and activities. “It takes a village to raise a child”. Higher SES kids have 50% more mentoring contacts, including almost twice as many teachers, friends of family, religious leaders and coaches.

Neighborhoods are increasingly segregated by class and the character of the neighborhood shapes daily life. Crime, poverty, health, safety, institutions, schools, norms, civic engagement, disorder, decay, trust, responsibility, collective ownership and care vary by neighborhood and shape perceptions, habits, norms and opportunities. Neighborhood differences harm lower class kids at all ages and accumulate with years in a more challenging setting. These effects can accumulate across generations. Some of the effects come from the skills, beliefs, habits, behavior and attitudes of individuals while others are transmitted through the quality of local institutions like schools, programs, libraries, parks, childcare and churches.

60% of affluent citizens say that they trust their neighbors. Only 25% of poor citizens agree. Strong social trust has fallen for top-third educated parents from 37% to 25%, a one-third decline from 1970 to 2010. It fell more sharply, from 30% to 17%, for the bottom-third educated group. Hopefulness versus hopelessness varies by class.

Church attendance and participation has been shown to have strong benefits to the participants, their neighbors and their community. Church attendance has been falling for all social classes but has dropped faster for lower education families. Top-third educated families have reduced church attendance by one-seventh (14%) between 1975 and 2010 from an average of 35 weeks per year to 30. Bottom-third educated families started at 30 weeks per year but dropped by 30% to 21 weeks per year. Given the trend to economic self-sufficiency where higher income families can support themselves (partially) while lower income families struggle, this disengagement from religious organizations is a significant loss for those with the greatest needs.

6. What is to be Done?

Growing income and wealth inequality is a problem. It is a root cause, but the book sidesteps this broad topic. Related to this issue, but slightly different, is the growth in scale and international competitiveness of the US economy that makes the gap between various economic roles much greater. Leaders, VP’s, directors and managers lead much larger firms. The complexity of modern production and commerce requires advanced STEM and other professional roles. Supervisors and technicians increasingly fill the middle jobs. Service and remaining clerical, distribution and manufacturing jobs fill the bottom. The complexity, required education, skills and experience required for higher jobs has increased much faster than that required in the lower half. Hence, the gap in “value added” between different levels is much higher. Upward economic and social mobility requires an even greater “leap forward” than it did in 1959.

The other drivers of lesser “equal opportunity” are the huge differences in family structures, parenting, schools and community support across American social classes.

As Americans, we hesitate to even use the term or concept “social class”, because our country was founded in opposition to the “social classes” of Europe and has embraced the heroic individualism of Jefferson, Jackson, Horatio Alger and the Republican Party for almost 150 years. We don’t have a king or a landed aristocracy. The typical American of either party and any income level is happy to take “pot shots” at the Rockefellers, robber barons, bankers and the corporate elite. Even with the rise of entrepreneurship, “rock star” CEO’s, and “the lifestyles of the rich and famous”, few Americans see a permanent upper class. Sociologists inevitably create social classes as tools for their work: sometimes 3 or 5 or 7, based on income, wealth, education, property, advantages, power, social standing and influence. Putnam’s statistics usually slice the country into 3 or 4 categories. As he noted at the beginning, education serves as a good proxy for class. Today we have 3 roughly equal size classes, defined by high school graduates or less (lower), college grads or more (higher) and the middle.

Putnam’s main conclusion is that social institutions and policies in the post WWII era promoted social mobility and economic opportunity by investing in the lower and middle classes, but that today we don’t make that investment. Our growing economic disparities are further leveraged into weak equality of opportunity and social mobility by our changed norms, institutions and public investments.

He notes that these differences have been felt sooner in marginal communities, especially nonwhite communities. As his Port Clinton chapter documents, I believe that they have also been seen earlier and deeper in small town America as well.

Putnam asserts that there are no “upper-class villains”. Social critics, leftists and populists might “beg to differ”. The increase in income inequality and the disproportionate value of public institutions for the “upper middle class” or the “professional class” or “suburban America” or “the boomers” makes this an increasingly controversial issue.

Putnam says we should address this challenge because of its impact on economic growth, democracy and morality. Failing to invest in lower- and middle-class students and institutions results in less development of their economic potential, lower productivity, lower output, lower earnings, lower growth and greater social costs (crime, welfare, police). Lower education and income citizens are much less engaged in the democratic processes. They have less buy-in to the system. They tend to not participate and undercut the legitimacy of government institutions and become more attracted to populist, authoritarian figures. Most religions and the US founding documents emphasize the inherent equality of individuals as human beings and the need for societies to invest in all citizens. There is an American consensus that “equal opportunity” is essential. This book documents that we clearly do not have “equal opportunity”.

The collapse of the working-class family is the central contributor to the growing opportunity gap. This should be in “ALL CAPS“. “Bowling Alone” documented the decline in community across many measures of participation in America between 1950 and 2000. “Our Kids” refines this analysis to show that the “upper middle class” is quite doing fine, thank you, on most measures of community engagement, participation and support, but that the working class has lost its historical moorings in the neighborhood, parish, ethnic group, union hall, union steward, precinct captain, extended family, social norms, religious enforcement, cooperatives, schools, social hall, VFW, township trustee, political boss, fraternal organization, social and athletic allegiances. The author accepts that these historical sources of working-class cohesion and support are mostly leaving the modern world but “hopes” that new social replacements will be found.

Putnam eliminates policy responses in several areas because they have not worked. Marriage enticements, abstinence, contraception, delayed childbirth, etc, seem to be beyond state influence. Policies that provide more cash to poor families are preferred: cash transfers, earned income tax credits, child tax credits and dollars for existing programs are suggested. Reducing incarceration could help dads to be better providers.

Putnam advocates for public support for children in the critical first 6 years of life. First year parental leave. Childcare subsidies for ages 2-4. Public funded and provided pre-K education. Parenting skills training and promotion.

Class based residential segregation drives different school results. Mixed income residential development policies could help. Invest in more guidance counselors and better teachers in low-income schools. Extend school hours and invest in extracurricular programs in poorer schools. Encourage neighborhood-based charter schools. Encourage Catholic schools to remain and grow in poor areas where they have historically been very successful. Invest in vocational education and locally controlled community colleges with vocational focuses. Eliminate “pay to play” from sports and activities. Invest in mentoring programs.

Postscript

In the last 40 years we were distracted by surface level debates about left versus right, liberal versus conservative. Republicans have clearly won the “framing” battle, contrasting the “free market” with “socialism”, “communism”, “bureaucrats”, “government”, “intellectuals”, “elites”, “planned economy”, “theft” and “taxation”. Schumpeter, Hayek, Rand and Friedman have eclipsed Keynes, Samuelson and Galbraith. The virtues of “capitalist creative destruction”, avoiding “the road to serfdom”, elevating economic results and values above all others and eliminating any national economic policy choices have captured the public imagination. The technocratic details of minimizing business cycles, managing a “mixed economy”, counterbalancing economic powers, balancing inflation and employment, managing the banking system, optimizing international trade and making real economic choices have become political “losers”.

Yet, the nation surely knows that “free market” economics is not the only solution. Real people are affected by our economic and social systems. We have a political system that is intended to manage these competing claims on society’s resources. Putnam describes this as the fundamental contrast between individual and group/community claims. American society has leaned to the individualist side historically but has often considered the community perspective as well. In the last 50 years it has leaned hard towards the individualist perspective alone.

This book shows what has happened. In 1964 with per capita GDP at $20,000, as a nation, we were able to invest in local, state and national institutions that ensured that all individuals in the bottom two-thirds could pursue upward mobility. Today at $60,000 real per capita income, we don’t have effective institutions or programs that support “our kids”. This is an economic, democratic and moral tragedy. I don’t think that politicians or citizens intended this result. I think that this is an unintended byproduct of the pendulum swing towards individual values alone.