Review_Author: Cheryl North
Book_Author: Richard de Lone
Book_Title: Small Futures: Children, Inequality, and the Limits of
Liberal Reform
Reference: (1979) New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Date: 3/20/2002
Time: 4:26:53 PM
Remote Name: 205.188.199.29
mailto: cnorth@udel.edu
Small Futures: Still No Changes
When people think of oppressive governments, the United States does not come to mind. People come to this country from all over the world for freedom and a better life. Unfortunately, the statistics show that unmodified upward mobility is not always the case. In Small Futures: Children, Inequality, and the Limits of Liberal Reform, Richard H. de Lone’s faces our society’s inequalities head on and are moves the reader to do something about it.
The American Reality
One can’t help but believe in the American dream. We want to think that everyone is created equal. That is what makes this country one of the best in the world. The plausibility of equality for all is not verified in the facts. Children just follow in their parents’ footsteps (de Lone 14). Some things that count against a child are being born poor, to parents with little education, to parents in dead-end jobs, or being a minority or female (de Lone 4). More than likely, a child born into one or more of these situations will probably mean that they will have less opportunity. If we lived in a truly equal society, none of these issues would be a factor. De Lone sums it up nicely when he says, “For poverty is not a state in itself. It is a symptom of broad social inequality” (6). Perhaps the most disturbing thing about this book is that it was published in 1979 and these issues still hold true today.
One particularly troubling statistic is that only 20% of American males surpassed the status of their father. On the same token, 20% fall below (de Lone 15). In several discussions with friends, they sincerely believe that we have the ability to better ourselves. Then I tell them the statistic above and it really makes them think. They look at their own families and see where this is a reality.
Another example of how we are brainwashed by our society is the issue of racism in our police force. Recently in Baltimore, a black female was raped by a black male. The following day, Major Donald Healy issued a memo stating that the area should be monitored every half hour and to stop every black male at a bus stop in the 1500 block of Woodbourne Avenue (Kane 3B). Needless to say, this caused an outrage and Major Healy was forced to resign. I’ve discussed this issue with several people, including my freshman composition class. The general consensus is that he made a big mistake, but the suspect was black. Unless you are a black male, you wouldn’t understand how often you are targeted by the police. They also fail to mention that, possibly, some people of different races may have some information to help with this case.
This conversation even led to the issue of drugs. I always tell people that more drugs are being used in the suburbs yet minority neighborhoods in urban areas are targeted for sting operations. Maybe the police should go undercover in law firms, hospitals, and corporations. It is the law of supply and demand; maybe this will get rid of the demand. Unfortunately, this will never happen in the unequal society pointed out in Small Futures.
All Men are Made Unequal
Just equalizing finances won’t equalize opportunity. The inequalities of income mean that people will live in poor neighborhoods won’t own a home, pay more for insurance and goods, and face higher rates of unemployment (de Lone 11). Social programs are instituted to change this. The same social programs instituted by the middle class. When these programs fail, the individuals are blamed (de Lone 34).
Why do these programs fail? De Lone points out some of the commonalities of these programs. First, they all reference back to an idealized past. Unfortunately, this past was not ideal, nor were these problems non-existent (de Lone 73). Second, they focus on equalizing opportunity for children with no regard for their parents or home life (de Lone 73). Plus, the upper-middle class implement these programs, and they are concerned with morality. In short—“that lack of morality causes poverty” (de Lone 74). Or the upper-middle class doesn’t really care. And finally, every time one of these programs fails, the blame is not placed on the program, but the people that it is supposed to help. Thus making class distinctions more prevalent, proving to the masses that these people can’t be helped (de Lone 74).
Let’s look at welfare. I’ve worked in a blue collar bar in Essex for several years. I hear the complaints all of the time. Yet, everyone enjoys the benefits of taxes through roads, schools, libraries, etc. There is no stigma when someone walks into the public library, yet the stigma remains high for someone who walks into a welfare office. Some people don’t think we should get rid of welfare because it keeps the poor from stealing from hard-working people or helps the children.
A few years ago, Baltimore implemented a program called Move to Opportunity (MTO). Lawmakers decided to give inner-city families the opportunity to move into the suburbs. They decided to move them to East Baltimore County; my neighborhood. The working class area of the suburbs where racial tensions run high and the schools are mediocre at best. Everyone focused on how racist the residents of these areas were when they complained of lowering property values and the strain on the school system. I didn’t see lawmakers moving inner-city families into their neighborhoods; into their high- performing schools.
De Lone also focuses on social class. Yes, it even exists in our classless society. He puts it best when he says that society closely mirrors a caste system. “Implicit in the notion of caste is a constricted, limited, and unchanging future—a constraint whose objective corollary can be found in the historical rigidity of black social statistics, in the limited opportunities for mobility, in the presence of job ceilings” (de Lone 155). Let’s take this one step further to the child. They may have supportive, hard-working parents at home but they see the reality of society around them. They process this information and then it becomes “his or her own theory of social reality” (de Lone 160). They digest all of this information around them and it becomes their idea of the future. “Families do not breed inequality—they reflect it” (de Lone 176).
The Answer?
Perhaps the most important question is what can be done about this? Should America dispose of all social programs because they can’t do anything until our country becomes unbiased? We see no immediate answer to racism and sexism so we might as well give up, right? Wrong?
De Lone says that we can’t reduce inequality by helping children, but help children by reducing inequality (178). The new breed of social program must acknowledge economic inequalities and alter social structure (de Lone 185). One suggestion that is made is tax credits. The welfare system encourages people not to work or marry. Thus making them an undesirable statistic and proving that the program doesn’t work. Tax credits would help those that already work.
Since this book was written over twenty years ago, some of these suggestions have been implemented. Once again, since they are implemented by our government, or upper-class white guys, they aren’t as successful as they should be. One such tax credit is the Hope Lifetime Learning Credit. If a family or person makes less than a certain amount of money a year, they can be reimbursed up to a thousand dollars for tuition and fees. Sounds good until you find out that it is $1,000 over a person’s lifetime.
One thousand dollars wouldn’t even cover one semester at a community college. One thousand dollars would never get a poor kid through college. One may note that they can get scholarships, but that is only if they are an exemplary student or are extremely poor and, in that case, couldn’t afford not to work full- time to study. Our current president can go to an ivy-league institution as a mediocre student and the above-average lower-class kid isn’t even given the chance to attend community college or even a trade school.
A few other programs today shine hope on our system. One is the National Writing Project. This program funds local projects in almost every state in the nation. Their premise is teachers teaching teachers. Exemplary teachers participate in the Invitational Summer Institute and produce a three hour long workshop to present to other teachers. These teachers are treated like professionals, paid for their time, and know what other teachers in their area need.
Another good thrust in education is smaller schools and smaller class sizes. This leads me to the only upper-class white guy that I have seen do anything for education. Bill Gates. Bill and Melinda Gates have started a foundation to reduce class size. This has been shown to show big educational gains for minority and poor students. Teachers can teach instead of lecture. One on one communication can take place.
De Lone has clearly gotten to the heart of the matter. Now the only hope is that De Lone runs for president and pushes through is own education bill and tax plans. Unfortunately, I don’t see an easy answer to the question. All I see are lawmakers passing mediocre laws under the pretense of saving our schools, but never making them good enough for them to send their kids there.