Concerted Cultivation versus Natural Growth: Is One Better Than the Other?

Throughout this semester, we’ve discussed education and the impact that segregation has on children’s education.  Poor Black kids typically end up in schools with little resources, broken down facilities and a different mindset that sets them up for underachievement.  They grow up believing that they will never be able to achieve what other white children in other schools can.  One aspect that was not explored was the difference between Concerted Cultivation and Natural Growth.  Annette Lareau discusses these differences in Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. 

Lareau defines Concerted Cultivation as a parenting method typically employed by middle class parents.  These parents believe in structured activities, such as soccer and band.  They encourage their children to debate with them, and often let their own decisions be swayed by their child’s arguments.  These parents are also very involved in their child’s school life.  Their confidence around people of authority, such as teachers or doctors, rubs off on their children.  This method raises children who have a sense of entitlement, or believe that they are equals with everyone surrounding them, including adults.  These children are able to navigate their way through institutional settings, a skill which will help them down the road when they are applying for colleges and jobs.

Natural Growth, on the other hand, is used more in working class and poor families.  These children participate more in unstructured play.  They have closer ties to their community and families, and kinship ties are especially important.  Because their parents are more focused on providing life basics, such as food, shelter and security, they often do not have as much time to become involved in their education.  Children typically do homework on their own.  Their parents also seem to have a lack of confidence, and even some mistrust in front of authority figures, especially those that are more educated than they are.  This mistrust is passed on to their children.

While the benefits of Concerted Cultivation, such as a heightened vocabulary and a confidence in front of authority figures, help middle class children navigate through institutional settings, therefore bringing them more benefits later on life, the benefits of Natural Growth are not as lauded.  Despite the fact that children who grew up under Natural Growth are better able to utilize unstructured time and know how to create ties with a community, among other things, these children continue to face the same challenges that their parents before them did.

The real question is, how do we break the cycle?  Do we create programs for lower class children that gives them the benefits of Concerted Cultivation at the cost of the benefits they would receive under Natural Growth?  Do we work to create a society that utilizes the skills these children are gaining?  Or do we mix both?  I Have A Dream is a good example of a program that does both.  While the kids receive the benefits of Concerted Cultivation in the focus that is put on school, they also receive the benefits of interacting freely with their peers and community, as well as some unstructured play time.