All Our Children

Setting the American family in political perspective

> There has been a 700% increase in the number of children affected by divorce since the turn of the century.

> Now 54% of married women with school-age children work outside the home, v. only 26% in 1948.

> Of 1,000 children born into the ranks of America's most affluent, 326 will still be there as adults, while only four out of every 1,000 born in the lowest strata will ever move up to the highest.

> By age 16, the average child will have watched TV for 12,000 to 15,000 hours, more time than he spends in school or with his parents.

These are some of the striking statistics that provided the underpinnings of All Our Children, The American Family Under Pressure, a report to be issued this week by the Carnegie Council on Children. Headed by Kenneth Keniston, the M.I.T. psychologist known for his studies of dissenting youth in the '60s, the eleven-member council has spent the past five years probing "what American society is doing to and for children." For starters, the researchers debunk the "myth of the self-sufficient family" and the still widely held belief that parents alone are responsible for what becomes of their children.

On the contrary, the council maintains, the family's function has dwindled ever since the 18th century, when the group acted as a self-sufficient agricultural unit. Then, chores performed by children contributed to the economic well-being of the family; now, by contrast, kids are an enormous drain on their parents--each costing, by conservative estimate, at least $35,000 to support just through high school. Furthermore, as children spend increasing amounts of time outside the home, the parent is reduced to being a "coordinator without voice or authority."

But while the family is changing, says the council, it is not--as many sociologists fear--collapsing. Parenthood is still "deeply rewarding," and more than 98% of all children in the U.S. still live with one or both of their parents. The greatest enemy of the family, says the council, is poverty, pure and simple. "One child out of four in America is being actively harmed by a 'stacked deck' created by the failings of our society."

To remedy that poverty, All Our Children proposes nothing less than an over haul of America's economic structure, from welfare and taxes to health care. Although proposals such as "flexible hours"--in which employees would determine their own daily schedules--would require drastic readjustments by private industry, the report focuses primarily on what government action is needed. Among the specific recommendations:

> A guaranteed income for those who "cannot work or should not have to," and assistance in the form of "income supports" for those whose wages are too low. The estimated price tag of the program would be $40 billion to $50 billion beyond current costs, paid by the wealthier 25% to 30% of the taxpayers.

> A national health-insurance plan, which the report calls an "immediate national priority."

One of the council's main goals, according to Keniston, is to "stimulate debate" about public policy. With the across-the-board reforms it advocates--all "consistent with the classic liberal view," Keniston concedes--All Our Children will no doubt spark controversy. While the council's shift of emphasis from the effects of the family's psychological structure to the impact of society on children is a constructive approach, the suggested solutions seem simplistic. All too often, the power of federal mandate seems to be invoked by the council as a magic cureall; wave the wand of legislation, they imply, and problems will vanish. Rather than looking ahead, the council appears to be advocating the same sort of reform that, in general, failed to solve the problems of society in the 1960s. They seem unlikely to do much better now for the beleaguered U.S. family.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.