By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
J.M. of Wikieup, Ariz., writes to call our readers’ attention to a survey taken by the Federal Statistical Office in Switzerland, reproduced in Wikipedia; also to an American study that came up with similar results. The findings offer much food for thought. (Many are skeptical of what is found in Wikipedia, but in this case I think it can be trusted since Wikipedia is merely reproducing the results of these studies.)
What the Swiss found, was that “if a father does not go to church, no matter how faithful his wife’s devotions, only one child in 50 will become a regular worshiper. If a father does go regularly, regardless of the practice of the mother, between two-thirds and three-quarters of their children will become churchgoers (regular and irregular). If a father goes but irregularly to church, regardless of his wife’s devotion, between half and two-thirds of their offspring will attend church regularly or occasionally.”
The study breaks down its findings in more detail: “A non-practicing mother with a regular father will see a minimum of two-thirds of her children ending up at church. In contrast, a non-practicing father with a regular mother will see two-thirds of his children not attending church. If his wife is similarly irregular that figure rises to 80 percent.”
The American study? Wikipedia summarizes as follows:
When both parents attend Sunday school, 72 percent of the children attend Sunday school when grown.
When only the father attends Sunday school, 55 percent of the children attend when grown.
When only the mother attends Sunday school, 15 percent of the children attend when grown.
When neither parent attends Sunday school, only 6 percent of the children attend when grown.
Those who are interested in seeing these studies in more detail can access them by doing a search on Wikipedia with the key words “church attendance.”
On another topic: When I read The New York Times column by Frank Bruni in late January I couldn’t help but think of the wisecrack: “Just because you are paranoid, it doesn’t mean they are not out to get you.” I try not to assume that the academic establishment always has a hidden agenda, even though experience has taught me that often is the case. I offer Exhibit A: How the academicians used the smokescreen of promoting “multiculturalism” and ending “ethnocentrism” to delegitimize Christianity’s role in society.
Is something similar going on in the Harvard Graduate School of Education report released in late January? Or am I overreacting? See what you think. Bruni informs us that the report, titled “Turning the Tide,” was put together by Harvard’s School of Education, along with “scores of educators,” including “the presidents and deans of admission at many of the country’s elite institutions of higher education.”
The recommendation of the report is a “revolution” that will end the advantage that children from wealthy families and prestigious high schools have in the college admissions process by leveling “the playing field for kids applying to college from less advantaged backgrounds.” Specifically, the “report recommends less emphasis on standardized test scores, which largely correlate with family income.”
At first glance, the objectives seem admirable. The report calls for colleges to make clear that “they won’t be impressed by more than a few Advanced Placement courses,” which “poorer high schools aren’t as likely to offer.” It also recommends that colleges “discourage manic résumé padding by accepting information on a sharply limited number or extracurricular activities,” and to use “essays and references to figure out which students’ community service projects are heartfelt and which are merely window dressing.”
Also that the colleges “give full due to the family obligations and part-time work that some underprivileged kids take on.”
Bruni sees the report as a sign that colleges are “becoming more conscious of their roles — too frequently neglected — in social mobility. They’re recognizing how many admissions measures favor students from affluent families.”
Sounds good, on first hearing. There were discussions in the faculty lounges of the high schools where I taught that centered on how some students were able to prop up their SAT scores through expensive private tutoring, making them seem more qualified than more talented students who were not tutored.
The “community service-padding” was also a subject of criticism, as far back as 30 years ago. There are companies that organize expensive overseas summer trips for college-bound students (archaeological digs, for example) that are designed to give the impression to colleges that the applicant was involved in lofty and altruistic volunteer work, when that was not necessarily true.
It is also true that not sufficient credit is given in the college admission process to students who work after school and on weekends. That experience can be as valuable to a young person’s maturation — and beneficial to society — as volunteering for a political campaign or charitable work. The tendency has been for colleges to view more favorably a student who volunteers for organizations such as the Sierra Club and the League of Women Voters than one who waits on tables or works in an automobile repair shop. But should they? In every case? It is not a closed question.
If “Turning the Tide” leads colleges to ponder these matters, it is to be commended. Then why am I reluctant to applaud?
Because I can’t help but think that the new guidelines will be used to bring in through the back door the racial quotas and affirmative action policies that court decisions have made it difficult for colleges to use openly in their admission process. I fear that is what Bruni means when he praises “Turning the Tide” as an indication that colleges “are becoming more conscious of their roles — too frequently neglected — in social mobility.”
The test will be what will happen when this Harvard School of Education report is acted upon. Will blue-collar Catholic students and the children of automobile mechanics from Georgia be included on the new “level the playing field for kids applying to college from less advantaged backgrounds”? Or will we find it restricted to the minority students favored by the colleges during the heyday of affirmative action programs?
Where would you place your bets?
+ + +
Readers are invited to submit comments and questions about this and other educational issues. The e-mail address for First Teachers is fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net, and the mailing address is P.O. Box 15, Wallingford, CT 06492.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress