Nichols, Sharon L. and Good, Thomas L. (2004).
America’s Teenagers—Myths and Realities: Media
Images, Schooling and the Social Costs of Careless Indifference.
Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
PP. 336
$34.50 ISBN 0-8058-4851-7
Reviewed by Mindy
Machanic
University of Maryland, University College
March 9, 2005
This book is both a deeply scholarly work and a passionate
statement of advocacy for social change. The authors, both at the
University of Arizona, are quite straightforward in letting us
know that they feel America is short-changing its youth, and thus
its future, and that the mass media are leading the way in
feeding the public stereotypes and misinformation, in the name of
higher ratings and readership. They then proceed to explain in
great depth and detail just how this all is occurring, and then
follow up with what is really going on with America’s youth
and what it means for youth, public policy and the future.
Beginning in Chapter 1 with a discussion of the common myths
of American teens, the Nichols & Good discuss how Americans –
parents, teachers, policymakers, the media – devalue
teenagers. Their reasons range from changes in family and
economic structures to forgetting what adolescence is really like
to adults and teens having little actual contact in day to day
life, but no matter the individual or combination of reasons,
they make a good argument that behind the hyperbole about
“family values” and how child-focused America is, the
reality is that we don’t like our youth very much. They
strengthen their arguments by presenting eight
“Findings” about the beliefs and behaviors of adults,
including parents, schools, and the larger society, as well as
the views of teens, with citations and brief discussion, that
point to an increasing lack of support for adolescents as they
make their way from childhood to productive adulthood.
If only to read Chapter 1, where this information is
presented, this book should be left on the desk of policymakers
in government, education and media at all levels. But the
book’s power lies in the succeeding chapters. In each
chapter a different aspect of the mythology about and life of
youth is addressed, in detail, with each myth, especially as it
is presented by the media in relation to teens, challenged by
empirical facts, examples, tables and graphs, and a discussion of
the implications for youth development and policy, along with a
chapter conclusion and directions for needed future research..
The book concludes with a discussion of problem-solving in
changing perceptions. This is not a book to skim lightly.
Two chapters look at youth and the media and violence; there
is some overlap in these chapters, and some of the content is
well-known (i.e., media as agents of socialization, violence as
entertainment). The discussion of common themes about youth in
the media is good, because it reminds us of what we are fed on a
constant basis. However, the strength of these chapters is in
what is not so well-known about youth violence, at least
partially because the media don’t let it be known. Youth
violence has been steadily decreasing, but it is the random
super-vicious events that grab media attention and shape our
perceptions. There is a brief discussion of youth suicide, an
area of youth violence that has been increasing, but it seemed
somewhat unsatisfying and shallow compared to the meatiness of
other discussions, such as that around guns and youthful
offenders.
Succeeding chapters look in depth at health aspects of
teenagers: their sex lives, their use of tobacco, alcohol and
drugs, their attitudes towards health and fitness and their
relationships with food and sleep. These are significant
chapters, and are full of facts that both support and contradict
current popular perceptions of teenagers. In particular, the
chapter on youth sexuality presents the issues surrounding the
pressures and contradictions faced by teenagers – their
burgeoning sexuality is reinforced by images of youth as sexy in
movies, ads and TV programs, while the schools are being told to
teach abstinence, a mixed message that leaves many confused and
Nichols and Good, 2004). The authors have rounded up the statistics
comparing the successes and failures of abstinence-only programs
as compared to other forms of sex ed programs, in terms of
reducing teenage sexuality and pregnancies, and show that the
abstinence-only programs are failing miserably. If only reality
wasn’t forced aside in the name of ideology, this
information could be productively used to reform school programs
and prevent uncounted pregnancies!
A chapter on teens and work discussed the economics of teen
labor and the various reasons teenagers work. This chapter was
disturbing to me, in that while it did link some kinds of work
with higher rates of dropping out of school, and some kinds of
work with poorer grades because of long hours and difficult
working conditions, it seemed to be making a case that there
should not be limits on how much work teenagers should be allowed
to do because of the variety of reasons they work. Since a
majority of teens do work for one reason or another, much of it
in conditions that are exploitive or physically draining,
it would make sense to set stricter limits on
those types of work, or provide better oversight on the employers
who are hiring workers under 18 to work all night five nights a week
emptying trucks! It is especially disturbing that Nichols & Good did
not make these kinds of suggestions when they compared this type
of work to that of teens working as interns in companies like
Microsoft, where they had lightweight flexible schedules, and
were doing the work for college entrance applications, rather
than to support their mothers and siblings. Perhaps the
disconnect comes from living in Arizona, a right-to-work state
which the authors noted in another chapter was very low on the
“social capital” scale, which is tied to lower levels
of child well-being (pp. 239-240).
Regulatory interference with business is not in the general
consciousness in such states.
The chapter on Education frustrated me. Nichols & Good claim, with
some statistical proof, that there is not, and has not been, a
crisis in American education. They present the history of the
major national reports and policy shifts since the 1950s, and
then tell us that when you look at the correct data, Americans
are no worse off educationally than previously, and in fact, do
better than before. They base these claims on the fact that ACT
and SAT scores have been rising, and that the comparisons of
American test results vs. those of other countries are based on
averages, rather than comparing equivalently prepared or same-age
students. Their argument is based on the fact that our grade 12
is equivalent to grades 13 or 14 in student age in some
countries, and that the math exams include calculus problems in
8th grade, when many American students are not taking
calculus. They presented some breakdown of scores based on
highest-scoring US districts and lowest-scoring districts, and
when shown that way, yes, our best scores do rank favorably with
those of the rest of the world. But this to me seems ingenuous, a
case of jiggering results to meet objectives, because curriculum
is different in grades 13 or 14 in those countries under
discussion than in grade 12 in the US or those countries, and age
has nothing to do with it, and we have chosen not to teach
calculus that early while other countries have.
The authors are using the data in a discussion of the role of
high-stakes testing in American schools, and how standards
imposed by policymakers are at odds with the needs of curriculum.
There is no doubt that many of the standards-based exit and
progress tests are unreasonable, and that many teachers are
teaching to the tests, and still schools are
“failing,” even if their scores are increasing
compared to previous results. And there is certainly no doubt
that unfunded mandates such as No Child Left Behind are
destructive to parents, teachers and students, who must struggle
to meet goals that may not match their own, and lack funds to do
what is necessary to meet those goals. Failure hurts.
Nichols & Good point out that nobody is sure about the role of
American public schools, and use examples of attitude surveys,
such as one that showed that when given a choice between a narrow
academic curriculum and one with variety, 57% of Americans
don’t want their students to study academics at the expense
of extra-curricular activities and subjects such as
responsibility, music and health (pp.
237-238). This is contrasted with other surveys showing other
results, highlighting the split in opinion about the role of
public schools in the US. The media also have a role in
underestimating youth’s performance and overestimating the
role of youth culture in that performance, as the authors point
out. Here is my frustration: at the same time, America wants to
be competitive with the rest of the world. If we want American
students to be consistently scoring well on the international
tests, then match the curriculum to those tests, not some
arbitrary exit test. However, if parents don’t want their
kids having 3 hours of homework a night, as do kids in other
countries with higher average scores on those tests than the US,
then they should quit making a fuss over standards and being
competitive. It can’t happen both ways without driving kids
crazy. The authors do not really discuss this quandary very
well.
The education chapter continues with a discussion of
differences between schools districts based on social and
economic capital, with a lot of tables and charts, and a
discussion of access to technology, dropout rates, teacher
attitudes, etc.. Here it would have been interesting to have some
direct comparisons, using the same states in each chart or
discussion, rather than talking about different states, as they
did in discussions of social and economic capital. For example,
is there a correlation between the states with lowest social
capital and those with lowest economic capital for schools? And
then with scores on the NAEP Tests? Finally, this chapter also
includes a discussion of preparing for college, and the impact of
the early-admissions process on teenagers.
The last chapter in the book looks at how to enhance the
future of youth. This chapter is very solution-focused, and first
gives tables of facts to refer to when looking for solutions: Ten
Critical Threats to America’s Children (p. 262), What We
Should Know About Youth (p. 263), and What We Should Be Doing For
Youth (p. 263). The authors then move into their model for changing
expectations based on these facts and issues. They have based
their model on the work of McCaslin and Demarino-Linnen ( 2000,
as cited in Nichols and Good 2004) and Weick (1984, as cited in Nichols
and Good, 2004). They present a “Small-Wins” Approach
to changing entrenched beliefs. This approach is essentially an
incremental approach based on a model of making changes through
changing expectations, by breaking down big policy needs into
small, manageable changes, such as the one-day-at-a-time approach
taken by Alcoholics Anonymous, and then targeting each need with
actions. After describing the approach (and diagramming the
model), they provide examples of how this approach could be
applied to various needs of undervalued youth, with more tables
setting out various policy area breakdowns, to match the
discussion areas set out in each chapter of the book .
The model is not radically different from other social science
models based on attitude change, and would not be difficult to
implement. It relies on basic problem-solving processes. The
difference is in its application to the needs of an undervalued
yet broad population which lacks a voice in American society. One
of the strengths of the book is that it is a step in
giving American teenagers a real voice, and perhaps giving them a
place in American society again, one that has been missing since
adolescence stretched into young adulthood because of structural
changes in American society. Lest we forget, they are the future,
and our own future depends on their satisfactory transition to
adulthood.
Unfortunately, the policymakers who most need the truths in
this book are the ones least likely to bother to read it.
About the Reviewer
Mindy Machanic,
Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor, Social & Behavioral Sciences
University of Maryland University College (online)
No comments:
Post a Comment