Good parenting isn’t a bad thing

Published 8:54 pm Wednesday, November 20, 2013

How, exactly, can The Atlantic magazine make good parenting sound so bad? Almost as a follow-up to the ridiculous piece in Slate last month titled “If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person,” The Atlantic now claims “After-School Activities Make Educational Inequality Even Worse.”

“It’s not just what happens inside the classroom that determines a child’s status as an adult,” writes Hilary Levey Friedman. “Accomplishments outside the classroom can be just as influential. Yes, a basic public education is in principle free to all (though of course quality correlates with property values). But activities outside of school are not free, so they largely benefit already advantaged kids.”

Therefore, middle class parents who involve their children in after-school activities are actually doing something wrong.

“While we talk a lot about inequalities between the rich and the poor, and the role school quality plays in perpetuating class divisions, one often overlooked factor is the opportunities middle- and upper-middle-class kids get to strengthen their life skills through organized competitive activities outside of the school system,” Friedman writes.

Much of what she claims is true; those skills are important in a child’s development and in helping that child reach his or her full potential.

And that’s why in Texas, school-based extracurricular activities are largely funded by the schools. Booster clubs also help. And many activities outside of school have alternative funding mechanisms — scholarships, for example.

So how do policy analysts go from “this is good for all” to “this exacerbates inequality,” implying it’s a bad thing.

That’s because talk of “inequality” inevitably leads to considerations of leveling — and not in the good sense.

Take income inequality. We’ve argued before that it’s a false issue; the lack of income mobility is the real problem. But talk of income inequality always ends in proposals for higher taxes on those who make more, death taxes, and more generous welfare benefits.

In other words, the underlying assumption is that it’s a zero-sum game, and if some people must lose wealth in order for others to gain wealth.

That’s demonstrably untrue in economics; the variable GDP shows that wealth can be created, not merely shifted.

It’s also untrue in education (which includes extracurricular activities). No one has to lose out, so that others can gain.

Yet that’s the position these articles seem to take.

“You are a bad person if you send your children to private school,” that Slate piece claimed. “Not bad like murderer bad — but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.”

The writer acknowledged, “Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good.”

It’s the sample principle with extracurricular activities. There’s inequality in after-school activities, and inequality is bad, therefore after-school activities are bad.

It’s a false syllogism, and an appeal to what’s called “leveling down.”

And it’s wrong. Parents naturally seek what’s best for their children, and work hard to ensure their children have many opportunities for enrichment. That’s not a bad thing. That’s just good parenting.