Effect of divorce on children [Archive]

Jim Justjim

12-11-2003, 07:17 PM

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes: "Rick" <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote: Hi I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful responses, but thought it might also be appropriate to post here. Does anyone know a good resource for real research on the effect of divorce on children? I would be very grateful for a pointer if you do. I would really like to find some dispassionate, non-partisan research material, rather than rely on feel-good (or feel-bad!) assertions! I'm interested in both what the short and long term effects might be, and on how you can minimise any bad effects by the way you do things. Many thanks. Judith Wallerstein did (and is still doing) the largest longitudinal study on divorce. She started in the early 1970s and the study is still going on. She has published a lot of papers and books regarding divorce. Here are two citations: There are two really important criticism of Wallerstein's work. First her work is anecdotal;

Not all of her study is anecdotal. She also measured children's adjustment
in school by the number of school problems (referals, etc). This isn't a
GREAT measure, but it isn't just anecdotal.
she is following a small number of children (131 I think),

In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is
pretty damn big).
and has no real control group nor any way to correct for researcher bias.

This is true, but because her work is anecdotal you wouldn't really need a
control group.
Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_.

That would be true of any research in divorce. How many good marriages end
in divorce?

Bill

12-11-2003, 09:02 PM

Jim Justjim wrote: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes: "Rick" <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote:> Hi> I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful responses,> but thought it might also be appropriate to post here. Does anyone> know a good resource for real research on the effect of divorce on> children? I would be very grateful for a pointer if you do. I would> really like to find some dispassionate, non-partisan research> material, rather than rely on feel-good (or feel-bad!) assertions!> I'm interested in both what the short and long term effects might be,> and on how you can minimise any bad effects by the way you do things.> Many thanks. Judith Wallerstein did (and is still doing) the largest longitudinal study on divorce. She started in the early 1970s and the study is still going on. She has published a lot of papers and books regarding divorce. Here are two citations: There are two really important criticism of Wallerstein's work. First her work is anecdotal; Not all of her study is anecdotal. She also measured children's adjustment in school by the number of school problems (referals, etc). This isn't a GREAT measure, but it isn't just anecdotal. she is following a small number of children (131 I think), In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is pretty damn big). and has no real control group nor any way to correct for researcher bias. This is true, but because her work is anecdotal you wouldn't really need a control group. Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_. That would be true of any research in divorce. How many good marriages end in divorce?

Related to this, it is probably better for the children if the parents DO get a
divorce and can be on friendly terms (in some cases), versus just staying
together "for the sake of the marriage commitment", while constantly fighting
and disrespecting each other.

The issue is more complex than it seems on the surface, and I'm not sure if it
is even possible to delineate the two with any research methodology. After
all, we're dealing with a *human* "control group", if there really is such a
thing.

Doug Anderson

12-11-2003, 09:27 PM

justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes: "Rick" <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote: > Hi > I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful responses, > but thought it might also be appropriate to post here. Does anyone > know a good resource for real research on the effect of divorce on > children? I would be very grateful for a pointer if you do. I would > really like to find some dispassionate, non-partisan research > material, rather than rely on feel-good (or feel-bad!) assertions! > I'm interested in both what the short and long term effects might be, > and on how you can minimise any bad effects by the way you do things. > Many thanks. Judith Wallerstein did (and is still doing) the largest longitudinal study on divorce. She started in the early 1970s and the study is still going on. She has published a lot of papers and books regarding divorce. Here are two citations: There are two really important criticism of Wallerstein's work. First her work is anecdotal; Not all of her study is anecdotal. She also measured children's adjustment in school by the number of school problems (referals, etc). This isn't a GREAT measure, but it isn't just anecdotal.

It is still fundamentally anecdotal information in the absence of a
control group. Just like "my divorced cousin's daughter* didn't make
it into Harvard" is accurate information that says something about her
high school performance, but is still anecdotal.
she is following a small number of children (131 I think), In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is pretty damn big).

Unfortunately this is true in sociology. And control groups are rare.
Which shows you just how fragile the "science" part of social science
is.
and has no real control group nor any way to correct for researcher bias. This is true, but because her work is anecdotal you wouldn't really need a control group.

You need a control group if you wish to draw conclusions about the
_effect_ of divorce. Otherwise she is, at best, noticing phenomena
which are correlated with divorce, but which aren't necessarily caused
by them.
Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_. That would be true of any research in divorce.

Exactly. Hence the scarcity of any real data.

If your point is "it would be hard to do better than Wallerstein," I
agree. If your point is "because it would be hard to do better, we
are justified in concluding that she is saying something serious about
the effects of divorce" then I disagree.

*my divorced cousin doesn't actually have any children, and if he did,
they'd be too young for college anyhow, but you get the point.

Doug

Rauni

12-11-2003, 10:27 PM

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 05:27:58 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes: > "Rick" <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote: > > Hi > > I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful responses, > > but thought it might also be appropriate to post here. Does anyone > > know a good resource for real research on the effect of divorce on > > children? I would be very grateful for a pointer if you do. I would > > really like to find some dispassionate, non-partisan research > > material, rather than rely on feel-good (or feel-bad!) assertions! > > I'm interested in both what the short and long term effects might be, > > and on how you can minimise any bad effects by the way you do things. > > Many thanks. > > Judith Wallerstein did (and is still doing) the largest longitudinal > study on divorce. She started in the early 1970s and the study is > still going on. She has published a lot of papers and books regarding > divorce. Here are two citations: There are two really important criticism of Wallerstein's work. First her work is anecdotal; Not all of her study is anecdotal. She also measured children's adjustment in school by the number of school problems (referals, etc). This isn't a GREAT measure, but it isn't just anecdotal.It is still fundamentally anecdotal information in the absence of acontrol group. Just like "my divorced cousin's daughter* didn't makeit into Harvard" is accurate information that says something about herhigh school performance, but is still anecdotal.she is following a small number of children (131 I think), In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is pretty damn big).Unfortunately this is true in sociology. And control groups are rare.Which shows you just how fragile the "science" part of social scienceis. and has no real control group nor any way to correct for researcher bias. This is true, but because her work is anecdotal you wouldn't really need a control group.You need a control group if you wish to draw conclusions about the_effect_ of divorce. Otherwise she is, at best, noticing phenomenawhich are correlated with divorce, but which aren't necessarily causedby them. Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_. That would be true of any research in divorce.Exactly. Hence the scarcity of any real data.If your point is "it would be hard to do better than Wallerstein," Iagree. If your point is "because it would be hard to do better, weare justified in concluding that she is saying something serious aboutthe effects of divorce" then I disagree.

So did she use any divorced couples who got along and didn't fight
over custody issues? I am curious as my daughter was very well
adjusted, a lot better than her friends who had intact families with
parents who didn't get along.

My daughter's teachers were always surprised as how well my ex and I
got along. People were always suggesting that we remarry because of
how well we got along (the main reason we got along was the fact that
we weren't married)*my divorced cousin doesn't actually have any children, and if he did, they'd be too young for college anyhow, but you get the point. Doug

Jim Justjim

12-12-2003, 08:22 AM

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes: > "Rick" <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote: > > Hi > > I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful > > responses, but thought it might also be appropriate to post here. > > Does anyone know a good resource for real research on the effect > > of divorce on children? I would be very grateful for a pointer if > > you do. I would really like to find some dispassionate, > > non-partisan research material, rather than rely on feel-good (or > > feel-bad!) assertions! I'm interested in both what the short and > > long term effects might be, and on how you can minimise any bad > > effects by the way you do things. Many thanks. > > Judith Wallerstein did (and is still doing) the largest > longitudinal study on divorce. She started in the early 1970s and > the study is still going on. She has published a lot of papers and > books regarding divorce. Here are two citations: There are two really important criticism of Wallerstein's work. First her work is anecdotal; Not all of her study is anecdotal. She also measured children's adjustment in school by the number of school problems (referals, etc). This isn't a GREAT measure, but it isn't just anecdotal. It is still fundamentally anecdotal information in the absence of a control group. Just like "my divorced cousin's daughter* didn't make it into Harvard" is accurate information that says something about her high school performance, but is still anecdotal.she is following a small number of children (131 I think), In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is pretty damn big). Unfortunately this is true in sociology. And control groups are rare. Which shows you just how fragile the "science" part of social science is.

I agree. In psychology this is also very true.
and has no real control group nor any way to correct for researcher bias. This is true, but because her work is anecdotal you wouldn't really need a control group. You need a control group if you wish to draw conclusions about the _effect_ of divorce. Otherwise she is, at best, noticing phenomena which are correlated with divorce, but which aren't necessarily caused by them. Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_. That would be true of any research in divorce. Exactly. Hence the scarcity of any real data. If your point is "it would be hard to do better than Wallerstein," I agree. If your point is "because it would be hard to do better, we are justified in concluding that she is saying something serious about the effects of divorce" then I disagree.

My point is that Wallerstein is a good starting point for future studies.
You have to start somewhere. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on
how you look at it) social scientists will not be "assigning" children to
experimental and control groups for divorce, anytime soon.
*my divorced cousin doesn't actually have any children, and if he did, they'd be too young for college anyhow, but you get the point.

Hmmmm... but this is purely anecdotal. :-)
Doug

Bill

12-12-2003, 10:57 AM

Rauni wrote: On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 05:27:58 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:> justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:>>> "Rick" <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote:>>> Hi>>> I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful responses,>>> but thought it might also be appropriate to post here. Does anyone>>> know a good resource for real research on the effect of divorce on>>> children? I would be very grateful for a pointer if you do. I would>>> really like to find some dispassionate, non-partisan research>>> material, rather than rely on feel-good (or feel-bad!) assertions!>>> I'm interested in both what the short and long term effects might be,>>> and on how you can minimise any bad effects by the way you do things.>>> Many thanks.>>>> Judith Wallerstein did (and is still doing) the largest longitudinal>> study on divorce. She started in the early 1970s and the study is>> still going on. She has published a lot of papers and books regarding>> divorce. Here are two citations:>> There are two really important criticism of Wallerstein's work.>> First her work is anecdotal; Not all of her study is anecdotal. She also measured children's adjustment in school by the number of school problems (referals, etc). This isn't a GREAT measure, but it isn't just anecdotal. It is still fundamentally anecdotal information in the absence of a control group. Just like "my divorced cousin's daughter* didn't make it into Harvard" is accurate information that says something about her high school performance, but is still anecdotal.> she is following a small number of> children (131 I think), In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is pretty damn big). Unfortunately this is true in sociology. And control groups are rare. Which shows you just how fragile the "science" part of social science is.> and has no real control group nor any way to> correct for researcher bias. This is true, but because her work is anecdotal you wouldn't really need a control group. You need a control group if you wish to draw conclusions about the _effect_ of divorce. Otherwise she is, at best, noticing phenomena which are correlated with divorce, but which aren't necessarily caused by them.> Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a> bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_. That would be true of any research in divorce. Exactly. Hence the scarcity of any real data. If your point is "it would be hard to do better than Wallerstein," I agree. If your point is "because it would be hard to do better, we are justified in concluding that she is saying something serious about the effects of divorce" then I disagree. So did she use any divorced couples who got along and didn't fight over custody issues? I am curious as my daughter was very well adjusted, a lot better than her friends who had intact families with parents who didn't get along.

Exactly. I think it basically comes down to: "the strife in the life".....is
bad for the kids. Hell, it's bad for ALL parties! In those cases, divorce
would be a better option than staying married, I believe (unless the strife and
lack of respect issues could be resolved).
My daughter's teachers were always surprised as how well my ex and I got along. People were always suggesting that we remarry because of how well we got along (the main reason we got along was the fact that we weren't married)

Which is sadly ironic, in some cases.....

Doug Anderson

12-12-2003, 11:08 AM

justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:
My point is that Wallerstein is a good starting point for future studies.

Yes, I agree with this. My point though, is that one really can't
draw any conclusions about the effects of divorce from her work.
You have to start somewhere. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it) social scientists will not be "assigning" children to experimental and control groups for divorce, anytime soon.

Exactly. Fortunately (or unfortunately). In fact to do real work on
this, you would want very carefully matched families.
Unfortunately, even this seems impossible since the fact that one pair
of parents divorced and the other didn't already tells you they are
too different to match up.

I think "divorce" just can't be separated from its correlate "unhappy
marriage." And without doing that, you can't separate the effects of
"divorce" from the effects of "unhappy marriage."

Emma Anne

12-12-2003, 11:27 AM

Rick <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote:
Hi I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful responses, but thought it might also be appropriate to post here. Does anyone know a good resource for real research on the effect of divorce on children? I would be very grateful for a pointer if you do. I would really like to find some dispassionate, non-partisan research material, rather than rely on feel-good (or feel-bad!) assertions! I'm interested in both what the short and long term effects might be, and on how you can minimise any bad effects by the way you do things. Many thanks.

The last time I checked there really wasn't any ggod research, but that
was a few years ago. All there was was collections of anecdotes and
nothing ressembling a control group.

Emma Anne

12-12-2003, 11:29 AM

Jim Justjim <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote:
In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is pretty damn big).

Not if there's no control group. It wouldn't be that hard. Start with
a bunch of people having marital difficulties and follow them through
life. Some will get divorced and some won't. Choosing only divorced
peoples guarantees you won't know how the other group did.

Paul Botts

12-12-2003, 01:51 PM

"Jim Justjim" <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20031211221712.883$bF@newsreader.com... Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_. That would be true of any research in divorce. How many good marriages
end in divorce?

Well, exactly. There is little point to comparing how children of divorced
parents do compared to children of all married parents, since the second
group includes parents who are happy with each other but the first doesn't.
Wallerstein has successfully shown that kids of parents who are happy with
each other do better than kids whose parents aren't happy with each other,
but I'm not sure how important a research achievement that is.

The relevant research would be comparing kids whose unhappy parents get
divorced to kids whose unhappy parents stay together (either by becoming
happier or simply by declining to divorce regardless). That is the choice
that families actually face in real life. Wallerstein did not make that
comparison and I'm unaware of any other long-term rigorous research that
has. It wouldn't be easy to pull off, I imagine.

Doug Anderson

12-12-2003, 02:57 PM

mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes:
Jim Justjim <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote: In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is pretty damn big). Not if there's no control group. It wouldn't be that hard. Start with a bunch of people having marital difficulties and follow them through life.

Unfortunately, that _still_ doesn't give you a control group. You won't be
able to know if problems in the "divorced" group came from getting
divorced, or from whatever led them to get divorced in the first
place! Maybe if they'd lived in a society that forced them to stay
married even though they wanted to separate, the resulting problems
would be as bad or worse.

Doug Anderson

12-12-2003, 02:58 PM

"Paul Botts" <paulspammerbotts@sbcglobal.net> writes:
"Jim Justjim" <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:20031211221712.883$bF@newsreader.com... Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_. That would be true of any research in divorce. How many good marriages end in divorce? Well, exactly. There is little point to comparing how children of divorced parents do compared to children of all married parents, since the second group includes parents who are happy with each other but the first doesn't. Wallerstein has successfully shown that kids of parents who are happy with each other do better than kids whose parents aren't happy with each other, but I'm not sure how important a research achievement that is.

Hey, this is sociology. It is acceptable to work hard to prove the
obvious.
The relevant research would be comparing kids whose unhappy parents get divorced to kids whose unhappy parents stay together (either by becoming happier or simply by declining to divorce regardless). That is the choice that families actually face in real life. Wallerstein did not make that comparison and I'm unaware of any other long-term rigorous research that has. It wouldn't be easy to pull off, I imagine.

It wouldn't. And even if you did, you'd still have the fact that
there would be a fundamental difference between the parents who
divorced and those who managed to repair things, or who just refused
to divorce. So you wouldn't know whether to attribute differences in
the children to the divorce, or to the different nature of the parents.

Jim Justjim

12-12-2003, 09:36 PM

mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) wrote: Jim Justjim <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote: In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is pretty damn big). Not if there's no control group. It wouldn't be that hard. Start with a bunch of people having marital difficulties and follow them through life. Some will get divorced and some won't. Choosing only divorced peoples guarantees you won't know how the other group did.

In the social sciences 131 subjects is pretty damn big.

You can't really have a "control group" in these situations. You might be
able to have a comparison group, but you would need really big samples when
you are talking about something with some many confounding variables.

Jim Justjim

12-12-2003, 09:38 PM

"Paul Botts" <paulspammerbotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote: "Jim Justjim" <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:20031211221712.883$bF@newsreader.com... Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_. That would be true of any research in divorce. How many good marriages end in divorce? Well, exactly. There is little point to comparing how children of divorced parents do compared to children of all married parents, since the second group includes parents who are happy with each other but the first doesn't. Wallerstein has successfully shown that kids of parents who are happy with each other do better than kids whose parents aren't happy with each other, but I'm not sure how important a research achievement that is.

The important findings from Wallerstein are that just because parents put
their lives back together doesn't mean that the child's life comes back
together, as well.
The relevant research would be comparing kids whose unhappy parents get divorced to kids whose unhappy parents stay together (either by becoming happier or simply by declining to divorce regardless). That is the choice that families actually face in real life. Wallerstein did not make that comparison and I'm unaware of any other long-term rigorous research that has. It wouldn't be easy to pull off, I imagine.

Rick

12-13-2003, 06:52 AM

Many thanks for all this - although I feel pitifully underqualified to
assess the Wallerstein debate!

Rauni

12-13-2003, 07:36 AM

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:57:08 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:
Rauni wrote: On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 05:27:58 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:> Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:>> justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:>>>>> "Rick" <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote:>>>> Hi>>>> I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful responses,>>>> but thought it might also be appropriate to post here. Does anyone>>>> know a good resource for real research on the effect of divorce on>>>> children? I would be very grateful for a pointer if you do. I would>>>> really like to find some dispassionate, non-partisan research>>>> material, rather than rely on feel-good (or feel-bad!) assertions!>>>> I'm interested in both what the short and long term effects might be,>>>> and on how you can minimise any bad effects by the way you do things.>>>> Many thanks.>>>>>> Judith Wallerstein did (and is still doing) the largest longitudinal>>> study on divorce. She started in the early 1970s and the study is>>> still going on. She has published a lot of papers and books regarding>>> divorce. Here are two citations:>>>> There are two really important criticism of Wallerstein's work.>>>> First her work is anecdotal;>> Not all of her study is anecdotal. She also measured children's adjustment> in school by the number of school problems (referals, etc). This isn't a> GREAT measure, but it isn't just anecdotal. It is still fundamentally anecdotal information in the absence of a control group. Just like "my divorced cousin's daughter* didn't make it into Harvard" is accurate information that says something about her high school performance, but is still anecdotal.>> she is following a small number of>> children (131 I think),>> In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is> pretty damn big). Unfortunately this is true in sociology. And control groups are rare. Which shows you just how fragile the "science" part of social science is.>> and has no real control group nor any way to>> correct for researcher bias.>> This is true, but because her work is anecdotal you wouldn't really need a> control group. You need a control group if you wish to draw conclusions about the _effect_ of divorce. Otherwise she is, at best, noticing phenomena which are correlated with divorce, but which aren't necessarily caused by them.>> Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a>> bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_.>> That would be true of any research in divorce. Exactly. Hence the scarcity of any real data. If your point is "it would be hard to do better than Wallerstein," I agree. If your point is "because it would be hard to do better, we are justified in concluding that she is saying something serious about the effects of divorce" then I disagree. So did she use any divorced couples who got along and didn't fight over custody issues? I am curious as my daughter was very well adjusted, a lot better than her friends who had intact families with parents who didn't get along.Exactly. I think it basically comes down to: "the strife in the life".....isbad for the kids. Hell, it's bad for ALL parties! In those cases, divorcewould be a better option than staying married, I believe (unless the strife andlack of respect issues could be resolved). My daughter's teachers were always surprised as how well my ex and I got along. People were always suggesting that we remarry because of how well we got along (the main reason we got along was the fact that we weren't married)Which is sadly ironic, in some cases.....
Yeah it is. But it is good that were remained friends

Rauni

12-13-2003, 07:38 AM

On 12 Dec 2003 11:08:48 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com>
wrote:
justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes: My point is that Wallerstein is a good starting point for future studies.Yes, I agree with this. My point though, is that one really can'tdraw any conclusions about the effects of divorce from her work. You have to start somewhere. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it) social scientists will not be "assigning" children to experimental and control groups for divorce, anytime soon.Exactly. Fortunately (or unfortunately). In fact to do real work onthis, you would want very carefully matched families.Unfortunately, even this seems impossible since the fact that one pairof parents divorced and the other didn't already tells you they aretoo different to match up.I think "divorce" just can't be separated from its correlate "unhappymarriage." And without doing that, you can't separate the effects of"divorce" from the effects of "unhappy marriage."

I agree. I find a lot of these kinds of *studies* suspect! Because
either the researcher has a preconceived idea or has't a clue what
they are looking for.

Joy

12-13-2003, 09:26 AM

"Jim Justjim" <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20031211221712.883$bF@newsreader.com... Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes: "Rick" <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote: > Hi > I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful responses, > but thought it might also be appropriate to post here. Does anyone > know a good resource for real research on the effect of divorce on > children? I would be very grateful for a pointer if you do. I would > really like to find some dispassionate, non-partisan research > material, rather than rely on feel-good (or feel-bad!) assertions! > I'm interested in both what the short and long term effects might
be, > and on how you can minimise any bad effects by the way you do
things. > Many thanks. Judith Wallerstein did (and is still doing) the largest longitudinal study on divorce. She started in the early 1970s and the study is still going on. She has published a lot of papers and books regarding divorce. Here are two citations: There are two really important criticism of Wallerstein's work. First her work is anecdotal; Not all of her study is anecdotal. She also measured children's
adjustment in school by the number of school problems (referals, etc). This isn't a GREAT measure, but it isn't just anecdotal.she is following a small number of children (131 I think), In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is pretty damn big). and has no real control group nor any way to correct for researcher bias. This is true, but because her work is anecdotal you wouldn't really need a control group. Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_. That would be true of any research in divorce. How many good marriages
end in divorce?

Well, what was suggested to complement Wallerstein's work wasn't really a
comparison of good marriages and bad marriages - it is a comparison of bad
marriages that end in divorce and bad marriages that don't end in divorce.
I think a more revealing study would be a comparison of the effect on
children of high-strife domestic lives versus low-strife domestic lives.

While this is anecdotal, and therefore no more valuable than Wallerstein's
study, my kids seem to be *much* better off with divorced parents than they
ever would have been if we had stayed married. Both kids have independently
and separately volunteered that they thought we should have divorced much
earlier. I have to confess that an awareness of Wallerstein's work is one
of the reasons that I didn't divorce earlier - which is something I know
deeply regret. This no doubt causes some bias on my part.

Joy

Doug Anderson

12-13-2003, 09:38 AM

"Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> writes:
Well, what was suggested to complement Wallerstein's work wasn't really a comparison of good marriages and bad marriages - it is a comparison of bad marriages that end in divorce and bad marriages that don't end in divorce. I think a more revealing study would be a comparison of the effect on children of high-strife domestic lives versus low-strife domestic lives.

I agree. In fact that is essentially what I think Wallerstein's work
shows (in so far as it shows anything). Only it gets presented as
being about divorce. While this is anecdotal, and therefore no more valuable than Wallerstein's study,

Unless you have 132 kids, in which case it is slightly more valuable
than Wallerstein's study!

my kids seem to be *much* better off with divorced parents than they ever would have been if we had stayed married. Both kids have independently and separately volunteered that they thought we should have divorced much earlier. I have to confess that an awareness of Wallerstein's work is one of the reasons that I didn't divorce earlier - which is something I know deeply regret. This no doubt causes some bias on my part.

Having never been divorced, and never having been the child of
divorced parents (though sometimes wishing I was), I have the same
bias.

Bill

12-13-2003, 09:41 AM

Joy wrote: "Jim Justjim" <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:20031211221712.883$bF@newsreader.com... Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:> "Rick" <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote:>> Hi>> I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful responses,>> but thought it might also be appropriate to post here. Does anyone>> know a good resource for real research on the effect of divorce on>> children? I would be very grateful for a pointer if you do. I would>> really like to find some dispassionate, non-partisan research>> material, rather than rely on feel-good (or feel-bad!) assertions!>> I'm interested in both what the short and long term effects might be,>> and on how you can minimise any bad effects by the way you do things.>> Many thanks.>> Judith Wallerstein did (and is still doing) the largest longitudinal> study on divorce. She started in the early 1970s and the study is> still going on. She has published a lot of papers and books regarding> divorce. Here are two citations: There are two really important criticism of Wallerstein's work. First her work is anecdotal; Not all of her study is anecdotal. She also measured children's adjustment in school by the number of school problems (referals, etc). This isn't a GREAT measure, but it isn't just anecdotal. she is following a small number of children (131 I think), In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is pretty damn big). and has no real control group nor any way to correct for researcher bias. This is true, but because her work is anecdotal you wouldn't really need a control group. Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_. That would be true of any research in divorce. How many good marriages end in divorce? Well, what was suggested to complement Wallerstein's work wasn't really a comparison of good marriages and bad marriages - it is a comparison of bad marriages that end in divorce and bad marriages that don't end in divorce. I think a more revealing study would be a comparison of the effect on children of high-strife domestic lives versus low-strife domestic lives. While this is anecdotal, and therefore no more valuable than Wallerstein's study, my kids seem to be *much* better off with divorced parents than they ever would have been if we had stayed married. Both kids have independently and separately volunteered that they thought we should have divorced much earlier. I have to confess that an awareness of Wallerstein's work is one of the reasons that I didn't divorce earlier - which is something I know deeply regret. This no doubt causes some bias on my part. Joy

But Wallerstein didn't say that it was better for the kids if the parents
didn't divorce under all circumstances, did he? (I haven't read it)

Bill

12-13-2003, 09:48 AM

Bill in Co. wrote: Joy wrote: "Jim Justjim" <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:20031211221712.883$bF@newsreader.com... Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:> justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:>>> "Rick" <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote:>>> Hi>>> I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful responses,>>> but thought it might also be appropriate to post here. Does anyone>>> know a good resource for real research on the effect of divorce on>>> children? I would be very grateful for a pointer if you do. I would>>> really like to find some dispassionate, non-partisan research>>> material, rather than rely on feel-good (or feel-bad!) assertions!>>> I'm interested in both what the short and long term effects might be,>>> and on how you can minimise any bad effects by the way you do things.>>> Many thanks.>>>> Judith Wallerstein did (and is still doing) the largest longitudinal>> study on divorce. She started in the early 1970s and the study is>> still going on. She has published a lot of papers and books regarding>> divorce. Here are two citations:>> There are two really important criticism of Wallerstein's work.>> First her work is anecdotal; Not all of her study is anecdotal. She also measured children's adjustment in school by the number of school problems (referals, etc). This isn't a GREAT measure, but it isn't just anecdotal.> she is following a small number of> children (131 I think), In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is pretty damn big).> and has no real control group nor any way to> correct for researcher bias. This is true, but because her work is anecdotal you wouldn't really need a control group.> Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a> bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_. That would be true of any research in divorce. How many good marriages end in divorce? Well, what was suggested to complement Wallerstein's work wasn't really a comparison of good marriages and bad marriages - it is a comparison of bad marriages that end in divorce and bad marriages that don't end in divorce. I think a more revealing study would be a comparison of the effect on children of high-strife domestic lives versus low-strife domestic lives. While this is anecdotal, and therefore no more valuable than Wallerstein's study, my kids seem to be *much* better off with divorced parents than they ever would have been if we had stayed married. Both kids have independently and separately volunteered that they thought we should have divorced much earlier. I have to confess that an awareness of Wallerstein's work is one of the reasons that I didn't divorce earlier - which is something I know deeply regret. This no doubt causes some bias on my part. Joy But Wallerstein didn't say that it was better for the kids if the parents didn't divorce under all circumstances, did he? (I haven't read it)

Or maybe it's a she. Is her name Judith? I should get off my *** and look
it up.

Rauni

12-13-2003, 10:20 AM

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:41:35 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:
Joy wrote: "Jim Justjim" <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:20031211221712.883$bF@newsreader.com... Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:> justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:>>> "Rick" <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote:>>> Hi>>> I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful responses,>>> but thought it might also be appropriate to post here. Does anyone>>> know a good resource for real research on the effect of divorce on>>> children? I would be very grateful for a pointer if you do. I would>>> really like to find some dispassionate, non-partisan research>>> material, rather than rely on feel-good (or feel-bad!) assertions!>>> I'm interested in both what the short and long term effects might be,>>> and on how you can minimise any bad effects by the way you do things.>>> Many thanks.>>>> Judith Wallerstein did (and is still doing) the largest longitudinal>> study on divorce. She started in the early 1970s and the study is>> still going on. She has published a lot of papers and books regarding>> divorce. Here are two citations:>> There are two really important criticism of Wallerstein's work.>> First her work is anecdotal; Not all of her study is anecdotal. She also measured children's adjustment in school by the number of school problems (referals, etc). This isn't a GREAT measure, but it isn't just anecdotal.> she is following a small number of> children (131 I think), In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is pretty damn big).> and has no real control group nor any way to> correct for researcher bias. This is true, but because her work is anecdotal you wouldn't really need a control group.> Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a> bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_. That would be true of any research in divorce. How many good marriages end in divorce? Well, what was suggested to complement Wallerstein's work wasn't really a comparison of good marriages and bad marriages - it is a comparison of bad marriages that end in divorce and bad marriages that don't end in divorce. I think a more revealing study would be a comparison of the effect on children of high-strife domestic lives versus low-strife domestic lives. While this is anecdotal, and therefore no more valuable than Wallerstein's study, my kids seem to be *much* better off with divorced parents than they ever would have been if we had stayed married. Both kids have independently and separately volunteered that they thought we should have divorced much earlier. I have to confess that an awareness of Wallerstein's work is one of the reasons that I didn't divorce earlier - which is something I know deeply regret. This no doubt causes some bias on my part. JoyBut Wallerstein didn't say that it was better for the kids if the parentsdidn't divorce under all circumstances, did he? (I haven't read it)

Limitations of Wallerstein's Research

http://www.divorceinfo.com/judithwallerstein.htm#Limitations

First and most important, Wallerstein's research is of necessity
anecdotal. That means she has not conducted scientific sampling or
rigorous "double-blind" methodologies to ensure correction for any
researcher bias. This means in turn that it's somewhat risky to
interpret her findings and assume that they apply across a broader
cross-section of children. It also means that, despite Wallerstein's
unquestioned professionalism, her very humanity is a variable that,
again of necessity, has most certainly colored the conclusions she
reaches.

Second, Wallerstein's subjects are not necessarily typical. By her own
admission, her subjects have been predominantly white, predominantly
upper middle class, and predominantly well-educated. That's another
reason why it may be risky to assume that her findings apply to other
groups.

I think the most important limitation of Wallerstein's research,
however, particularly as it relates to those of you who are struggling
with a high-conflict marriage, is what she did not study. She did not
study -- in fact she could not study -- whether the effects she
studied flowed from the divorce itself or from the conflict that
caused the divorce.

And that's where the misinterpretation comes in. Wallerstein's
research has already been cited, and I'm sure it will be cited more
now after the release of her latest installment in June of 1997, as
grounds for making divorce more difficult to get. Those seeking to
require waiting periods, pre-divorce counseling, parent education, and
proof of fault in divorce have all have used Wallerstein's research as
evidence that divorce is the problem, and if we can just stop people
from divorcing, we'll correct the problem.

Joy

12-13-2003, 11:13 AM

"Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dulmtvcm52paj58p89u4gk35tsvb42k3lo@4ax.com...
Those seeking to require waiting periods, pre-divorce counseling, parent education, and proof of fault in divorce have all have used Wallerstein's research as evidence that divorce is the problem, and if we can just stop people from divorcing, we'll correct the problem.

That is the biggest problem that I see with the research. A lot of people
don't realize how limited this research is, and *do* seem to use it to claim
that "divorce is the problem, so stopping divorce is the solution". It helps
to create a skewed view of reality.

Personally, I think it should be harder to get *married*. If we required
waiting periods, pre-marital counseling, pre-marital education in things
like interpersonal relationships, financial management, communication
styles, etc, I think the marriage rate would drop - but the divorce rate
would drop a lot more because a lot of the issues that cause marital strife
would become evident *before* the wedding, not *after*. I think it would
weed out a significant percentage of the unsuited couples.

Rauni

12-13-2003, 11:26 AM

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 14:13:48 -0500, "Joy"
<fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote:
"Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:dulmtvcm52paj58p89u4gk35tsvb42k3lo@4ax .com... Those seeking to require waiting periods, pre-divorce counseling, parent education, and proof of fault in divorce have all have used Wallerstein's research as evidence that divorce is the problem, and if we can just stop people from divorcing, we'll correct the problem.That is the biggest problem that I see with the research. A lot of peopledon't realize how limited this research is, and *do* seem to use it to claimthat "divorce is the problem, so stopping divorce is the solution". It helpsto create a skewed view of reality.Personally, I think it should be harder to get *married*. If we requiredwaiting periods, pre-marital counseling, pre-marital education in thingslike interpersonal relationships, financial management, communicationstyles, etc, I think the marriage rate would drop - but the divorce ratewould drop a lot more because a lot of the issues that cause marital strifewould become evident *before* the wedding, not *after*. I think it wouldweed out a significant percentage of the unsuited couples.
Yup that makes a lot more sense. Much better to prevent the problem.

JWB

12-13-2003, 11:30 AM

Joy

12-13-2003, 12:50 PM

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message
news:cNJCb.190129$ri.27463489@twister.nyc.rr.com.. . "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote in message news:QwJCb.6996$z24.1923@bignews6.bellsouth.net... Personally, I think it should be harder to get *married*. If we
required waiting periods, pre-marital counseling, pre-marital education in things like interpersonal relationships, financial management, communication styles, etc, I think the marriage rate would drop - but the divorce rate would drop a lot more because a lot of the issues that cause marital strife would become evident *before* the wedding, not *after*. I think it
would weed out a significant percentage of the unsuited couples. In your scenario, could unmarrieds still have kids?

If they neglect birth control, it could be hard to avoid....although in all
honesty I also think the world would be a better place if birth control were
free, and readily available.

I guess I don't see it as any worse to be a kid whose parents didn't get
married because they found out they couldn't get along than it is to be a
kid whose parents got divorced because they couldn't get along. Maybe
better, because divorce has such a tendency to set up an adversarial
situation.

Jim Justjim

12-13-2003, 01:56 PM

"Bill in Co." <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote: Joy wrote: "Jim Justjim" <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:20031211221712.883$bF@newsreader.com... Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:> justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:>>> "Rick" <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote:>>> Hi>>> I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful>>> responses, but thought it might also be appropriate to post here.>>> Does anyone know a good resource for real research on the effect of>>> divorce on children? I would be very grateful for a pointer if you>>> do. I would really like to find some dispassionate, non-partisan>>> research material, rather than rely on feel-good (or feel-bad!)>>> assertions! I'm interested in both what the short and long term>>> effects might be, and on how you can minimise any bad effects by>>> the way you do things. Many thanks.>>>> Judith Wallerstein did (and is still doing) the largest longitudinal>> study on divorce. She started in the early 1970s and the study is>> still going on. She has published a lot of papers and books>> regarding divorce. Here are two citations:>> There are two really important criticism of Wallerstein's work.>> First her work is anecdotal; Not all of her study is anecdotal. She also measured children's adjustment in school by the number of school problems (referals, etc). This isn't a GREAT measure, but it isn't just anecdotal.> she is following a small number of> children (131 I think), In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is pretty damn big).> and has no real control group nor any way to> correct for researcher bias. This is true, but because her work is anecdotal you wouldn't really need a control group.> Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a> bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_. That would be true of any research in divorce. How many good marriages end in divorce? Well, what was suggested to complement Wallerstein's work wasn't really a comparison of good marriages and bad marriages - it is a comparison of bad marriages that end in divorce and bad marriages that don't end in divorce. I think a more revealing study would be a comparison of the effect on children of high-strife domestic lives versus low-strife domestic lives. While this is anecdotal, and therefore no more valuable than Wallerstein's study, my kids seem to be *much* better off with divorced parents than they ever would have been if we had stayed married. Both kids have independently and separately volunteered that they thought we should have divorced much earlier. I have to confess that an awareness of Wallerstein's work is one of the reasons that I didn't divorce earlier - which is something I know deeply regret. This no doubt causes some bias on my part. Joy But Wallerstein didn't say that it was better for the kids if the parents didn't divorce under all circumstances, did he? (I haven't read it)

She never said, one way or the other. What she did say is that divorce
leaves a lasting impression on a child. Also, she said that just because
parents get their lives together (get remarried, become finacially stable)
doesn't mean that it becomes peaches and cream for the children. An adult
can replace a spouse with another spouse more easily than a child can
accept another parent into their lives.

Jim Justjim

12-13-2003, 02:02 PM

Rauni <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote: On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:41:35 GMT, "Bill in Co." <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:Joy wrote: "Jim Justjim" <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:20031211221712.883$bF@newsreader.com...> Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:>> justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:>>>>> "Rick" <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote:>>>> Hi>>>> I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful>>>> responses, but thought it might also be appropriate to post here.>>>> Does anyone know a good resource for real research on the effect>>>> of divorce on children? I would be very grateful for a pointer if>>>> you do. I would really like to find some dispassionate,>>>> non-partisan research material, rather than rely on feel-good (or>>>> feel-bad!) assertions! I'm interested in both what the short and>>>> long term effects might be, and on how you can minimise any bad>>>> effects by the way you do things. Many thanks.>>>>>> Judith Wallerstein did (and is still doing) the largest>>> longitudinal study on divorce. She started in the early 1970s and>>> the study is still going on. She has published a lot of papers and>>> books regarding divorce. Here are two citations:>>>> There are two really important criticism of Wallerstein's work.>>>> First her work is anecdotal;>> Not all of her study is anecdotal. She also measured children's> adjustment in school by the number of school problems (referals,> etc). This isn't a GREAT measure, but it isn't just anecdotal.>>> she is following a small number of>> children (131 I think),>> In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131> is pretty damn big).>>> and has no real control group nor any way to>> correct for researcher bias.>> This is true, but because her work is anecdotal you wouldn't really> need a control group.>>> Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a>> bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_.>> That would be true of any research in divorce. How many good> marriages end in divorce? Well, what was suggested to complement Wallerstein's work wasn't really a comparison of good marriages and bad marriages - it is a comparison of bad marriages that end in divorce and bad marriages that don't end in divorce. I think a more revealing study would be a comparison of the effect on children of high-strife domestic lives versus low-strife domestic lives. While this is anecdotal, and therefore no more valuable than Wallerstein's study, my kids seem to be *much* better off with divorced parents than they ever would have been if we had stayed married. Both kids have independently and separately volunteered that they thought we should have divorced much earlier. I have to confess that an awareness of Wallerstein's work is one of the reasons that I didn't divorce earlier - which is something I know deeply regret. This no doubt causes some bias on my part. JoyBut Wallerstein didn't say that it was better for the kids if theparents didn't divorce under all circumstances, did he? (I haven'tread it) Limitations of Wallerstein's Research http://www.divorceinfo.com/judithwallerstein.htm#Limitations First and most important, Wallerstein's research is of necessity anecdotal. That means she has not conducted scientific sampling or rigorous "double-blind" methodologies to ensure correction for any researcher bias. This means in turn that it's somewhat risky to interpret her findings and assume that they apply across a broader cross-section of children. It also means that, despite Wallerstein's unquestioned professionalism, her very humanity is a variable that, again of necessity, has most certainly colored the conclusions she reaches.

This is true, to greater and lesser degrees, in ALL research, particularly
that dealing with human beings.
Second, Wallerstein's subjects are not necessarily typical. By her own admission, her subjects have been predominantly white, predominantly upper middle class, and predominantly well-educated. That's another reason why it may be risky to assume that her findings apply to other groups.

Wallerstein did this in order to study divorce under "the best of
circumstances". While there are other things that invalidate her research,
having a homogeneous group helps to INCREASE the reliability and validity
of her measures.
I think the most important limitation of Wallerstein's research, however, particularly as it relates to those of you who are struggling with a high-conflict marriage, is what she did not study. She did not study -- in fact she could not study -- whether the effects she studied flowed from the divorce itself or from the conflict that caused the divorce. And that's where the misinterpretation comes in. Wallerstein's research has already been cited, and I'm sure it will be cited more now after the release of her latest installment in June of 1997, as grounds for making divorce more difficult to get. Those seeking to require waiting periods, pre-divorce counseling, parent education, and proof of fault in divorce have all have used Wallerstein's research as evidence that divorce is the problem, and if we can just stop people from divorcing, we'll correct the problem.

Yes, others have used (or rather misused) Wallerstein's work, but
Wallerstein never says that people shouldn't get divorced. Only that
divorce has lasting effects on children. As a therapist, social scientist,
and child of a divorce, I have to agree.

Doug Anderson

12-13-2003, 02:59 PM

justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:
Wallerstein did this in order to study divorce under "the best of circumstances". While there are other things that invalidate her research, having a homogeneous group helps to INCREASE the reliability and validity of her measures.

True, but the problem is that people have used her study to make
claims that "divorce under the best of circumstances" is worse than
"staying married even though want to get divorced."

Her work provides no support for that conclusion. (Nor does she
herself make that conclusion as far as I know, so it isn't her fault
that her work is misused.)

Jim Justjim

12-13-2003, 08:20 PM

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes: Wallerstein did this in order to study divorce under "the best of circumstances". While there are other things that invalidate her research, having a homogeneous group helps to INCREASE the reliability and validity of her measures. True, but the problem is that people have used her study to make claims that "divorce under the best of circumstances" is worse than "staying married even though want to get divorced." Her work provides no support for that conclusion. (Nor does she herself make that conclusion as far as I know, so it isn't her fault that her work is misused.)

Yes, it is unfortunate that people use her study in that way (and no, she
never said that). I think the important thing to get out of her study is
that civorce DOES affect children and even when parents feel "better" that
doesn't mean that their children are doing, or are going to do, better.

JWB

12-13-2003, 09:14 PM

"Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote
in message news:KXKCb.7027$z24.4613@bignews6.bellsouth.net... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:cNJCb.190129$ri.27463489@twister.nyc.rr.com.. . "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com>
wrote in message news:QwJCb.6996$z24.1923@bignews6.bellsouth.net... Personally, I think it should be harder to get *married*. If we required waiting periods, pre-marital counseling, pre-marital education in
things like interpersonal relationships, financial management, communication styles, etc, I think the marriage rate would drop - but the divorce
rate would drop a lot more because a lot of the issues that cause marital strife would become evident *before* the wedding, not *after*. I think it would weed out a significant percentage of the unsuited couples. In your scenario, could unmarrieds still have kids? If they neglect birth control, it could be hard to avoid....although in
all honesty I also think the world would be a better place if birth control
were free, and readily available.

What I guess I don't understand is the advantage to delaying marriage (to
combat divorce, and therefore, the effects of divorce on kids) if unmarrieds
could still have kids.

I think a better solution is to not allow just anyone to have kids. Of
course, that's not possible in our world, but I can dream...

Doug Anderson

12-13-2003, 09:30 PM

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes:
"Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote in message news:KXKCb.7027$z24.4613@bignews6.bellsouth.net... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:cNJCb.190129$ri.27463489@twister.nyc.rr.com.. . "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote in message news:QwJCb.6996$z24.1923@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > Personally, I think it should be harder to get *married*. If we required > waiting periods, pre-marital counseling, pre-marital education in things > like interpersonal relationships, financial management, communication > styles, etc, I think the marriage rate would drop - but the divorce rate > would drop a lot more because a lot of the issues that cause marital strife > would become evident *before* the wedding, not *after*. I think it would > weed out a significant percentage of the unsuited couples. In your scenario, could unmarrieds still have kids? If they neglect birth control, it could be hard to avoid....although in all honesty I also think the world would be a better place if birth control were free, and readily available. What I guess I don't understand is the advantage to delaying marriage (to combat divorce, and therefore, the effects of divorce on kids) if unmarrieds could still have kids.

How 'bout this? John and Jane get married, thinking that marriage
will help them live happily ever after. Once they're married, they
aren't that happy, but figure things will be better after they have
kids...

Whereas if they'd delayed marriage, they might have realized they
_weren't_ meant for each other and not gotten married.

JWB

12-13-2003, 09:40 PM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tzSCb.385781$275.1241520@attbi_s53... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com>
wrote in message news:KXKCb.7027$z24.4613@bignews6.bellsouth.net... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:cNJCb.190129$ri.27463489@twister.nyc.rr.com.. . > "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote > in message news:QwJCb.6996$z24.1923@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > > Personally, I think it should be harder to get *married*. If we required > > waiting periods, pre-marital counseling, pre-marital education in things > > like interpersonal relationships, financial management,
communication > > styles, etc, I think the marriage rate would drop - but the
divorce rate > > would drop a lot more because a lot of the issues that cause
marital > strife > > would become evident *before* the wedding, not *after*. I think
it would > > weed out a significant percentage of the unsuited couples. > > In your scenario, could unmarrieds still have kids? If they neglect birth control, it could be hard to avoid....although
in all honesty I also think the world would be a better place if birth
control were free, and readily available. What I guess I don't understand is the advantage to delaying marriage
(to combat divorce, and therefore, the effects of divorce on kids) if
unmarrieds could still have kids. How 'bout this? John and Jane get married, thinking that marriage will help them live happily ever after. Once they're married, they aren't that happy, but figure things will be better after they have kids... Whereas if they'd delayed marriage, they might have realized they _weren't_ meant for each other and not gotten married.

John and Jane sound like idiots, and are prime candidates for JWB's
sterilization program.

Doug Anderson

12-13-2003, 09:44 PM

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:tzSCb.385781$275.1241520@attbi_s53... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote in message news:KXKCb.7027$z24.4613@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message > news:cNJCb.190129$ri.27463489@twister.nyc.rr.com.. . > > "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote > > in message news:QwJCb.6996$z24.1923@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > > > > Personally, I think it should be harder to get *married*. If we > required > > > waiting periods, pre-marital counseling, pre-marital education in things > > > like interpersonal relationships, financial management, communication > > > styles, etc, I think the marriage rate would drop - but the divorce rate > > > would drop a lot more because a lot of the issues that cause marital > > strife > > > would become evident *before* the wedding, not *after*. I think it > would > > > weed out a significant percentage of the unsuited couples. > > > > In your scenario, could unmarrieds still have kids? > > If they neglect birth control, it could be hard to avoid....although in all > honesty I also think the world would be a better place if birth control were > free, and readily available. What I guess I don't understand is the advantage to delaying marriage (to combat divorce, and therefore, the effects of divorce on kids) if unmarrieds could still have kids. How 'bout this? John and Jane get married, thinking that marriage will help them live happily ever after. Once they're married, they aren't that happy, but figure things will be better after they have kids... Whereas if they'd delayed marriage, they might have realized they _weren't_ meant for each other and not gotten married. John and Jane sound like idiots, and are prime candidates for JWB's sterilization program.

Yeah, but given the impossibility of implementing your sterilization
program, making marriage harder might prevent just a few people from
having kids together that shouldn't.

Bill

12-13-2003, 09:47 PM

Doug Anderson wrote: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote in message news:KXKCb.7027$z24.4613@bignews6.bellsouth.net... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:cNJCb.190129$ri.27463489@twister.nyc.rr.com.. .> "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote> in message news:QwJCb.6996$z24.1923@bignews6.bellsouth.net...>>> Personally, I think it should be harder to get *married*. If we required>> waiting periods, pre-marital counseling, pre-marital education in things>> like interpersonal relationships, financial management, communication>> styles, etc, I think the marriage rate would drop - but the divorce rate>> would drop a lot more because a lot of the issues that cause marital>> strife would become evident *before* the wedding, not *after*. I think>> it would weed out a significant percentage of the unsuited couples.>> In your scenario, could unmarrieds still have kids? If they neglect birth control, it could be hard to avoid....although in all honesty I also think the world would be a better place if birth control
were free, and readily available. What I guess I don't understand is the advantage to delaying marriage (to combat divorce, and therefore, the effects of divorce on kids) if unmarrieds could still have kids. How 'bout this? John and Jane get married, thinking that marriage will help them live happily ever after. Once they're married, they aren't that happy, but figure things will be better after they have kids...

THAT is totally stupid. Are there really such people?

JWB

12-13-2003, 09:59 PM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lNSCb.386630$ao4.1285064@attbi_s51...
Yeah, but given the impossibility of implementing your sterilization program, making marriage harder might prevent just a few people from having kids together that shouldn't.

I married 35 days after meeting my wife. We are perfect for each other. My
ex wife... well, we dated for years, lived together for awhile, then
married. 18 months later, we were done.

My point isn't merely anecdotal - I truly think "dating time" (or whatever)
poses no advantage at all. In fact, I now think such time is more of a
hindrance to marital success. It is not so easy to break up once you're
together a year or so - even if you are not married, it's sometimes easier
to move forward than to back out. Especially in today's world (where a
couple likely has some financial stuff together, even if not married). To
me, that explains why people who live together are more likely to get
divorced - it was easier to move ahead than to end it.

I recall before getting married reading some stats that stated the lowest
divorce rate was amongst people who married within six months of meeting. I
can't find any such study again (and perhaps what I saw was bull****), but
it makes perfect sense to me.

Doug Anderson

12-13-2003, 10:09 PM

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:lNSCb.386630$ao4.1285064@attbi_s51... Yeah, but given the impossibility of implementing your sterilization program, making marriage harder might prevent just a few people from having kids together that shouldn't. I married 35 days after meeting my wife. We are perfect for each other. My ex wife... well, we dated for years, lived together for awhile, then married. 18 months later, we were done. My point isn't merely anecdotal - I truly think "dating time" (or whatever) poses no advantage at all. In fact, I now think such time is more of a hindrance to marital success. It is not so easy to break up once you're together a year or so - even if you are not married, it's sometimes easier to move forward than to back out. Especially in today's world (where a couple likely has some financial stuff together, even if not married). To me, that explains why people who live together are more likely to get divorced - it was easier to move ahead than to end it.

Who said anything about _time_? The point is to make marriage enough harder
so that it _isn't_ easier to just move "ahead." Don't ask me how though.
At least in the US we have things like the Bill of Rights that are likely
to interfere with any serious attempts to make marriage harder.
I recall before getting married reading some stats that stated the lowest divorce rate was amongst people who married within six months of meeting. I can't find any such study again (and perhaps what I saw was bull****), but it makes perfect sense to me.

Supposing this to be true, it doesn't indicate that if those people
were forced to wait longer, or to jump through more hoops, then they
would be more likely to get divorced. If that statistic is true, and
if it means _anything_ it probably means that people who get married
quickly are very sure of themselves, and sometimes even for good
reason. That doesn't mean that if you, for example, made them wait
longer, they would then be more likely to get divorced.

JWB

12-13-2003, 10:48 PM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:08TCb.44148$8y1.184986@attbi_s52... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:lNSCb.386630$ao4.1285064@attbi_s51... Yeah, but given the impossibility of implementing your sterilization program, making marriage harder might prevent just a few people from having kids together that shouldn't. I married 35 days after meeting my wife. We are perfect for each other.
My ex wife... well, we dated for years, lived together for awhile, then married. 18 months later, we were done. My point isn't merely anecdotal - I truly think "dating time" (or
whatever) poses no advantage at all. In fact, I now think such time is more of a hindrance to marital success. It is not so easy to break up once you're together a year or so - even if you are not married, it's sometimes
easier to move forward than to back out. Especially in today's world (where a couple likely has some financial stuff together, even if not married).
To me, that explains why people who live together are more likely to get divorced - it was easier to move ahead than to end it. Who said anything about _time_? The point is to make marriage enough
harder so that it _isn't_ easier to just move "ahead." Don't ask me how though. At least in the US we have things like the Bill of Rights that are likely to interfere with any serious attempts to make marriage harder.

I did think "time" being the logical way to make it tougher.

I recall before getting married reading some stats that stated the
lowest divorce rate was amongst people who married within six months of
meeting. I can't find any such study again (and perhaps what I saw was bull****),
but it makes perfect sense to me. Supposing this to be true, it doesn't indicate that if those people were forced to wait longer, or to jump through more hoops, then they would be more likely to get divorced. If that statistic is true, and if it means _anything_ it probably means that people who get married quickly are very sure of themselves, and sometimes even for good reason. That doesn't mean that if you, for example, made them wait longer, they would then be more likely to get divorced.

That's what I believe - that the ones who do it quickly are, for the most
part, very sure of themselves and just "know". Waiting probably isn't deemed
necessary for most folks who feel that way.

My experiences (5 live-in's, one ex wife, a million and a half "I love
you's" to various women, and, of course, my wonderful wife) make me very
black and white here - I feel you either know, or you don't. The person is
either right for you, and you just *know* it, or they are not right for you.
If you have to ask, well, they aren't the one.

When I hear of a couple living together to "try it out", well, I know it
won't last. If they aren't already sure, it won't work. If they go into
marriage saying "we have a 50% chance of making it", I know they're
eventually getting divorced (in my opinion)

Standard disclaimer - Feel free to add the words "most", "many", or
"sometimes" to the above. In other words, it's a given that exceptions exist
for almost any situation. Pointing out such isn't necessary.

(I should make that my sig)

JWB

Doug Anderson

12-13-2003, 11:41 PM

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:08TCb.44148$8y1.184986@attbi_s52... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:lNSCb.386630$ao4.1285064@attbi_s51... > Yeah, but given the impossibility of implementing your sterilization > program, making marriage harder might prevent just a few people from > having kids together that shouldn't. I married 35 days after meeting my wife. We are perfect for each other. My ex wife... well, we dated for years, lived together for awhile, then married. 18 months later, we were done. My point isn't merely anecdotal - I truly think "dating time" (or whatever) poses no advantage at all. In fact, I now think such time is more of a hindrance to marital success. It is not so easy to break up once you're together a year or so - even if you are not married, it's sometimes easier to move forward than to back out. Especially in today's world (where a couple likely has some financial stuff together, even if not married). To me, that explains why people who live together are more likely to get divorced - it was easier to move ahead than to end it. Who said anything about _time_? The point is to make marriage enough harder so that it _isn't_ easier to just move "ahead." Don't ask me how though. At least in the US we have things like the Bill of Rights that are likely to interfere with any serious attempts to make marriage harder. I did think "time" being the logical way to make it tougher. I recall before getting married reading some stats that stated the lowest divorce rate was amongst people who married within six months of meeting. I can't find any such study again (and perhaps what I saw was bull****), but it makes perfect sense to me. Supposing this to be true, it doesn't indicate that if those people were forced to wait longer, or to jump through more hoops, then they would be more likely to get divorced. If that statistic is true, and if it means _anything_ it probably means that people who get married quickly are very sure of themselves, and sometimes even for good reason. That doesn't mean that if you, for example, made them wait longer, they would then be more likely to get divorced. That's what I believe - that the ones who do it quickly are, for the most part, very sure of themselves and just "know". Waiting probably isn't deemed necessary for most folks who feel that way.

Right. But the point is, it might discourage the other folks, who
aren't as gifted as you and your wife, from making dumb mistakes.
My experiences (5 live-in's, one ex wife, a million and a half "I love you's" to various women, and, of course, my wonderful wife) make me very black and white here - I feel you either know, or you don't. The person is either right for you, and you just *know* it, or they are not right for you. If you have to ask, well, they aren't the one.

I have no quarrel with that. But you aren't addressing the point.
The point _isn't_ that it takes time to be sure, the point is that if
you force people the people who shouldn't be getting married to work
harder in order to get married (and the only way to do that is to make
it harder for everyone to get married), some of them will come to
their senses before they actually do the deed!

Rauni

12-14-2003, 07:14 AM

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:48:13 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com>
wrote:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:08TCb.44148$8y1.184986@attbi_s52... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:lNSCb.386630$ao4.1285064@attbi_s51... > Yeah, but given the impossibility of implementing your sterilization > program, making marriage harder might prevent just a few people from > having kids together that shouldn't. I married 35 days after meeting my wife. We are perfect for each other.My ex wife... well, we dated for years, lived together for awhile, then married. 18 months later, we were done. My point isn't merely anecdotal - I truly think "dating time" (orwhatever) poses no advantage at all. In fact, I now think such time is more of a hindrance to marital success. It is not so easy to break up once you're together a year or so - even if you are not married, it's sometimeseasier to move forward than to back out. Especially in today's world (where a couple likely has some financial stuff together, even if not married).To me, that explains why people who live together are more likely to get divorced - it was easier to move ahead than to end it. Who said anything about _time_? The point is to make marriage enoughharder so that it _isn't_ easier to just move "ahead." Don't ask me how though. At least in the US we have things like the Bill of Rights that are likely to interfere with any serious attempts to make marriage harder.I did think "time" being the logical way to make it tougher. I recall before getting married reading some stats that stated thelowest divorce rate was amongst people who married within six months ofmeeting. I can't find any such study again (and perhaps what I saw was bull****),but it makes perfect sense to me. Supposing this to be true, it doesn't indicate that if those people were forced to wait longer, or to jump through more hoops, then they would be more likely to get divorced. If that statistic is true, and if it means _anything_ it probably means that people who get married quickly are very sure of themselves, and sometimes even for good reason. That doesn't mean that if you, for example, made them wait longer, they would then be more likely to get divorced.That's what I believe - that the ones who do it quickly are, for the mostpart, very sure of themselves and just "know". Waiting probably isn't deemednecessary for most folks who feel that way.

Oh my I married my current husband five months after meeting him. I
just knew he was the right guy.

My first husband I married about two years after we met. And I always
had doubts

But the main difference was I was 19 when I met my first husband and
50 when I met my currant husband. I was a whole lot wiser about the
world and people by thenMy experiences (5 live-in's, one ex wife, a million and a half "I loveyou's" to various women, and, of course, my wonderful wife) make me veryblack and white here - I feel you either know, or you don't. The person iseither right for you, and you just *know* it, or they are not right for you.If you have to ask, well, they aren't the one.When I hear of a couple living together to "try it out", well, I know itwon't last. If they aren't already sure, it won't work. If they go intomarriage saying "we have a 50% chance of making it", I know they'reeventually getting divorced (in my opinion)Standard disclaimer - Feel free to add the words "most", "many", or"sometimes" to the above. In other words, it's a given that exceptions existfor almost any situation. Pointing out such isn't necessary.(I should make that my sig)JWB

JWB

12-14-2003, 07:46 AM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UuUCb.387527$ao4.1286871@attbi_s51... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:08TCb.44148$8y1.184986@attbi_s52... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: > "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:lNSCb.386630$ao4.1285064@attbi_s51... > > > Yeah, but given the impossibility of implementing your
sterilization > > program, making marriage harder might prevent just a few people
from > > having kids together that shouldn't. > > I married 35 days after meeting my wife. We are perfect for each
other. My > ex wife... well, we dated for years, lived together for awhile, then > married. 18 months later, we were done. > > My point isn't merely anecdotal - I truly think "dating time" (or whatever) > poses no advantage at all. In fact, I now think such time is more of
a > hindrance to marital success. It is not so easy to break up once
you're > together a year or so - even if you are not married, it's sometimes easier > to move forward than to back out. Especially in today's world (where
a > couple likely has some financial stuff together, even if not
married). To > me, that explains why people who live together are more likely to
get > divorced - it was easier to move ahead than to end it. Who said anything about _time_? The point is to make marriage enough harder so that it _isn't_ easier to just move "ahead." Don't ask me how
though. At least in the US we have things like the Bill of Rights that are
likely to interfere with any serious attempts to make marriage harder. I did think "time" being the logical way to make it tougher. > I recall before getting married reading some stats that stated the lowest > divorce rate was amongst people who married within six months of meeting. I > can't find any such study again (and perhaps what I saw was
bull****), but > it makes perfect sense to me. Supposing this to be true, it doesn't indicate that if those people were forced to wait longer, or to jump through more hoops, then they would be more likely to get divorced. If that statistic is true, and if it means _anything_ it probably means that people who get married quickly are very sure of themselves, and sometimes even for good reason. That doesn't mean that if you, for example, made them wait longer, they would then be more likely to get divorced. That's what I believe - that the ones who do it quickly are, for the
most part, very sure of themselves and just "know". Waiting probably isn't
deemed necessary for most folks who feel that way. Right. But the point is, it might discourage the other folks, who aren't as gifted as you and your wife, from making dumb mistakes. My experiences (5 live-in's, one ex wife, a million and a half "I love you's" to various women, and, of course, my wonderful wife) make me very black and white here - I feel you either know, or you don't. The person
is either right for you, and you just *know* it, or they are not right for
you. If you have to ask, well, they aren't the one. I have no quarrel with that. But you aren't addressing the point. The point _isn't_ that it takes time to be sure, the point is that if you force people the people who shouldn't be getting married to work harder in order to get married (and the only way to do that is to make it harder for everyone to get married), some of them will come to their senses before they actually do the deed!

Yes, in going off on my tangent, I did forget that. I agree that if it were
made tougher, maybe some schleps who shouldn't be married will see the
light.

shinypenny

12-14-2003, 01:33 PM

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<K_SCb.417484$pT1.366973@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
I married 35 days after meeting my wife. We are perfect for each other. My ex wife... well, we dated for years, lived together for awhile, then married. 18 months later, we were done.

Well I just "knew" when I got engaged to my ex three months after we
met. Had doubts during the engagement, but by then the wedding plans
were well on the way, so I wrote off my doubts as normal jitters.

Personally, I think you may just know, but it's still a good idea to
postpone engagement and marriage until you've dated someone for *at
least* a full year.

My point isn't merely anecdotal - I truly think "dating time" (or whatever) poses no advantage at all. In fact, I now think such time is more of a hindrance to marital success. It is not so easy to break up once you're together a year or so - even if you are not married, it's sometimes easier to move forward than to back out. Especially in today's world (where a couple likely has some financial stuff together, even if not married). To me, that explains why people who live together are more likely to get divorced - it was easier to move ahead than to end it.

True. And there are also people like me who had doubts during the
engagement, but moved things forward because too much investment in
wedding plans were on the line. I am convinced, had we waited a full
year to get engaged, we would never have married.

(I always thought it'd be nice if people didn't make such a big deal
out of getting married, but then if the marriage made it successfully
to, say 10 years, THEN they threw a huge lavish party to celebrate!)

jen

JWB

12-14-2003, 03:04 PM

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0312141333.2772beb3@posting.google.c om... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message
news:<K_SCb.417484$pT1.366973@twister.nyc.rr.com>... I married 35 days after meeting my wife. We are perfect for each other.
My ex wife... well, we dated for years, lived together for awhile, then married. 18 months later, we were done. Well I just "knew" when I got engaged to my ex three months after we met. Had doubts during the engagement, but by then the wedding plans were well on the way, so I wrote off my doubts as normal jitters. Personally, I think you may just know, but it's still a good idea to postpone engagement and marriage until you've dated someone for *at least* a full year.

Just curious, how old were you when you met this person?

My point isn't merely anecdotal - I truly think "dating time" (or
whatever) poses no advantage at all. In fact, I now think such time is more of a hindrance to marital success. It is not so easy to break up once you're together a year or so - even if you are not married, it's sometimes
easier to move forward than to back out. Especially in today's world (where a couple likely has some financial stuff together, even if not married).
To me, that explains why people who live together are more likely to get divorced - it was easier to move ahead than to end it. True. And there are also people like me who had doubts during the engagement, but moved things forward because too much investment in wedding plans were on the line. I am convinced, had we waited a full year to get engaged, we would never have married.

or, had you listened to your gut.
(I always thought it'd be nice if people didn't make such a big deal out of getting married, but then if the marriage made it successfully to, say 10 years, THEN they threw a huge lavish party to celebrate!)

Yes, I am inclined to agree :)

Paul Botts

12-15-2003, 09:39 AM

"Jim Justjim" <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20031213003853.428$a1@newsreader.com... The important findings from Wallerstein are that just because parents put their lives back together doesn't mean that the child's life comes back together, as well.

Hmm, I'm not sure that stating the blindingly obvious qualifies as an
"important" finding.

Sounds like a red herring strategy at work here. Is there someone somewhere
who claims that parents "putting their lives back together" always makes
the children happy, or something?

Doug Anderson

12-15-2003, 09:50 AM

"Paul Botts" <paulspammerbotts@sbcglobal.net> writes:
"Jim Justjim" <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:20031213003853.428$a1@newsreader.com... The important findings from Wallerstein are that just because parents put their lives back together doesn't mean that the child's life comes back together, as well. Hmm, I'm not sure that stating the blindingly obvious qualifies as an "important" finding.

In sociology it does.
Sounds like a red herring strategy at work here. Is there someone somewhere who claims that parents "putting their lives back together" always makes the children happy, or something?

I think that would be a "strawman strategy." There are people (I'm
one of them) who say that children are often better off with divorced
parents than with married parents who don't love each other and thus
provide the children with a model for a loveless marriage when the
children reach adulthood.

Wallerstein's work is held up (not by her) as showing that my point of
view is wrong (which it doesn't).

Paul Botts

12-15-2003, 09:52 AM

"Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote
in message news:QwJCb.6996$z24.1923@bignews6.bellsouth.net... Personally, I think it should be harder to get *married*. If we required waiting periods, pre-marital counseling, pre-marital education in things like interpersonal relationships, financial management, communication styles, etc, I think the marriage rate would drop - but the divorce rate would drop a lot more because a lot of the issues that cause marital
strife would become evident *before* the wedding, not *after*. I think it would weed out a significant percentage of the unsuited couples.

Yes, exactly. I can speak from personal experience here since I am half of
one such "unsuited couple". I got married in my 20s and its clear now that
neither my wife nor I knew each other all that well at the time. Neither of
us is a bad person nor do we hate each other -- we simply don't belong in
the same marriage together, and hence we will end up contributing to the
divroce statistics at some point. Its taken a lot of soulsearching and
counseling these last few years to figure that out. Today I wish there had
been some requirements that would have slowed us down back when we were in
our young fever to get married -- there is at least a decent chance that
we'd have made a better decision. (No guarantees of course).

shinypenny

12-15-2003, 09:56 AM

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<I%5Db.420272$pT1.157746@twister.nyc.rr.com>... "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c8cb5319.0312141333.2772beb3@posting.google.c om... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<K_SCb.417484$pT1.366973@twister.nyc.rr.com>... I married 35 days after meeting my wife. We are perfect for each other. My ex wife... well, we dated for years, lived together for awhile, then married. 18 months later, we were done. Well I just "knew" when I got engaged to my ex three months after we met. Had doubts during the engagement, but by then the wedding plans were well on the way, so I wrote off my doubts as normal jitters. Personally, I think you may just know, but it's still a good idea to postpone engagement and marriage until you've dated someone for *at least* a full year. Just curious, how old were you when you met this person?

I was about 24ish.

jen

JWB

12-15-2003, 10:51 AM

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0312150956.602c2cd1@posting.google.c om... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message
news:<I%5Db.420272$pT1.157746@twister.nyc.rr.com>... "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c8cb5319.0312141333.2772beb3@posting.google.c om... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<K_SCb.417484$pT1.366973@twister.nyc.rr.com>... > I married 35 days after meeting my wife. We are perfect for each
other. My > ex wife... well, we dated for years, lived together for awhile, then > married. 18 months later, we were done. Well I just "knew" when I got engaged to my ex three months after we met. Had doubts during the engagement, but by then the wedding plans were well on the way, so I wrote off my doubts as normal jitters. Personally, I think you may just know, but it's still a good idea to postpone engagement and marriage until you've dated someone for *at least* a full year. Just curious, how old were you when you met this person? I was about 24ish.

That could explain part of it. I guess it's how experienced you are. For
example, when I "knew", I was 33 with a ton of relationships behind me. It
was easy to say "something's different". But if you don't have much to
compare it to, it's easy to think "something's different" when it really
isn't.

Ellie

12-15-2003, 03:13 PM

Doug Anderson wrote:
I think that would be a "strawman strategy." There are people (I'm one of them) who say that children are often better off with divorced parents than with married parents who don't love each other and thus provide the children with a model for a loveless marriage when the children reach adulthood.

What do you base your view on?
Wallerstein's work is held up (not by her) as showing that my point of view is wrong (which it doesn't).

What kind of work would be needed to show you are wrong?

What I am trying to understand is whether there is ANY kind of study possible to
prove one way or another. It seems to me that this is an area where almost no
opinion can be proven wrong (or right), because practically it's almost
impossible to have a study that covers everything.

Bill

12-15-2003, 03:18 PM

Ellie wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: I think that would be a "strawman strategy." There are people (I'm one of them) who say that children are often better off with divorced parents than with married parents who don't love each other and thus provide the children with a model for a loveless marriage when the children reach adulthood. What do you base your view on? Wallerstein's work is held up (not by her) as showing that my point of view is wrong (which it doesn't). What kind of work would be needed to show you are wrong? What I am trying to understand is whether there is ANY kind of study possible to prove one way or another. It seems to me that this is an area where almost no opinion can be proven wrong (or right), because practically it's almost impossible to have a study that covers everything.

I agree with you Ellie, but don't you agree that it is probably true? That
it's better for the kids for the parents to divorce, and become (hopefully) on
more friendly terms, than it is for them to stay married, and constantly put
each other down, and disrespect each other?

Ellie

12-15-2003, 03:50 PM

"Bill in Co." wrote:
I agree with you Ellie, but don't you agree that it is probably true? That it's better for the kids for the parents to divorce, and become (hopefully) on more friendly terms, than it is for them to stay married, and constantly put each other down, and disrespect each other?

No, I don't think we can generalize. It very much depends on the situation,
and varies greatly. There are cases where what you say is true, and
as many cases where though parents may not be very happy with each other,
they can, and do, provide a stable and loving home for their children. I have seen
too many divorces where despite the efforts of parents to do the best they can,
the kids have suffered greatly - and not because the parents were negligent
or bad either, but because of simple realities that their parents end up having
their own lives and priorities which shortchange the kids. However, I don't
believe it is possible to show any of this with (statistical) certainty by any
study!

Doug Anderson

12-15-2003, 04:26 PM

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: I think that would be a "strawman strategy." There are people (I'm one of them) who say that children are often better off with divorced parents than with married parents who don't love each other and thus provide the children with a model for a loveless marriage when the children reach adulthood. What do you base your view on?

Nothing to speak of. It makes sense to me and fits with my anecdotal
observation.
Wallerstein's work is held up (not by her) as showing that my point of view is wrong (which it doesn't). What kind of work would be needed to show you are wrong?

I can't actually conceive of a scientific way to verify this either
way. There is no way to do a real experiment (allow some families to
divorce, prevent others).
What I am trying to understand is whether there is ANY kind of study possible to prove one way or another. It seems to me that this is an area where almost no opinion can be proven wrong (or right), because practically it's almost impossible to have a study that covers everything.

Well, in fact I would claim it is almost impossible to have a study
which covers _anything_. Everything isn't even an issue here.

As long as you let people sort themselves out, you just don't get any
information about whether differences are caused by the categories
they sort themselves into, or by the reasons they are sorting
themselves into different categories.

Doug Anderson

12-15-2003, 04:31 PM

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes:
"Bill in Co." wrote: I agree with you Ellie, but don't you agree that it is probably true? That it's better for the kids for the parents to divorce, and become (hopefully) on more friendly terms, than it is for them to stay married, and constantly put each other down, and disrespect each other? No, I don't think we can generalize. It very much depends on the situation, and varies greatly.

Yes, I agree that it is hard to generalize, and depends on the situation.
There are cases where what you say is true, and as many cases where though parents may not be very happy with each other, they can, and do, provide a stable and loving home for their children.

But I'd like to analyze beyond whether parents provide a stable and
loving home for their children. For example, do they provide a model
whereby their children can enjoy long term loving relationship with
their own partners, as adults?

Presumably not. Does this matter? Harder to say.
I have seen too many divorces where despite the efforts of parents to do the best they can, the kids have suffered greatly - and not because the parents were negligent or bad either, but because of simple realities that their parents end up having their own lives and priorities which shortchange the kids.

I've seen that happen too. But I've seen it happen when the parents
_don't_ get divorced as well! There are parents who are going to
shortchange their kids divorced, or no. Does divorcing make that more
likely? I'm not convinced.

(I also think parents _should_ have their own lives, though it should
be done without shortchanging their kids. That can be a balancing
act. But I think parents who sacrifice _everything_ "for their
children" are also often doing bad parenting.)

shinypenny

12-15-2003, 04:47 PM

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<LonDb.422675$pT1.300350@twister.nyc.rr.com>...

I was about 24ish. That could explain part of it. I guess it's how experienced you are. For example, when I "knew", I was 33 with a ton of relationships behind me. It was easy to say "something's different". But if you don't have much to compare it to, it's easy to think "something's different" when it really isn't.

Well, the truth is I dated A LOT before marriage - not just dating,
but serious long-term relationships, too. The only thing I hadn't done
at that point was live with anyone (although I did have boyfriends who
camped out a lot).

The year before I met my ex, I took a long break, because I was tired
of kissing frogs and realized I'd never spent much time *without* a
relationship! Since I was 15 or so I had gone from one relationship to
the next.

I then had a short-term relationship with a guy who, if he didn't have
to move back to his country, I could see myself getting serious about.
That relationship made me realize I was ready for a commitment. That's
when I met my ex.

Ted'll like this one: when I met my ex, initially I wasn't interested.
He wasn't my usual type. But then I had this experience where I
thought God was telling me, "Give this one a chance." So I did.

It wasn't until Engaged Encounter that I began to have serious qualms.
But he was so certain, and the wedding was only weeks away. I knew
everyone had made their travel plans and it would cost too much to
cancel..... and it seemed God had directed me to him.........so I
wrote everything off as jitters.

So if my age had anything to do with it, it wasn't because I lacked
relationship experience. But you could say I lacked the confidence in
myself to call it off and not care what anybody thought.

Regardless - I still don't think the marriage was a total mistake. I
think if I was 24 again I'd probably go through it just the same. I'm
a different person, and better in many ways because of what I went
through and learned about during that marriage and subsequent divorce.
Also, I have my children, whom I wouldn't trade for the world.

jen

Bill

12-15-2003, 05:02 PM

Ellie wrote: "Bill in Co." wrote: I agree with you Ellie, but don't you agree that it is probably true? That it's better for the kids for the parents to divorce, and become (hopefully) on more friendly terms, than it is for them to stay married, and constantly put each other down, and disrespect each other? No, I don't think we can generalize. It very much depends on the situation, and varies greatly. There are cases where what you say is true, and as many cases where though parents may not be very happy with each other, they can, and do, provide a stable and loving home for their children. I have seen too many divorces where despite the efforts of parents to do the best they can, the kids have suffered greatly - and not because the parents were negligent or bad either, but because of simple realities that their parents end up having their own lives and priorities which shortchange the kids. However, I don't believe it is possible to show any of this with (statistical) certainty by any study!

OK, I hadn't even thought of that possibility - that once the parents divorce,
they might abandon the parenting, do their own thing, and shortchange the kids
in the process. I was just assuming they wouldn't do that. (Was only
thinking of the constant strife in the life aspect).

JWB

12-15-2003, 05:16 PM

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
The year before I met my ex, I took a long break, because I was tired of kissing frogs and realized I'd never spent much time *without* a relationship! Since I was 15 or so I had gone from one relationship to the next.

****, I kinda did the same thing before I married my ex.

Maybe long breaks aren't good ;)

In regards to the rest of your post, well, it seems you did have good "past
experiences" to compare it with.

JWB

Ellie

12-15-2003, 06:07 PM

"Bill in Co." wrote:
OK, I hadn't even thought of that possibility - that once the parents divorce, they might abandon the parenting, do their own thing, and shortchange the kids in the process. I was just assuming they wouldn't do that. (Was only thinking of the constant strife in the life aspect).

I think I made it clear that I wasn't talking about irresponsible parents who
abandon the parenting. Perhaps my views are tainted because of the divorce
cases that *I* have seen. I know many couples who divorced, tried their
best to parent their kids, but the circumstances of their lives inevitably
caused a lot of grief for the kids. Many found themselves move farther
than they wanted because of job, new partner, needing a support system
and moving closer to their parents, etc. Then there are those (majority
that I know) whose kids went through a very tough time while they were
dating and having new people come in and out of their lives.
Step families and *new* offspring of their parents are another source
of distress for the kids. None of this is the parents' fault, they should
go one with their lives. And I know there are many cases that the kids
ride along these changes without much negative effect, but I just know
way too many who don't.

On the other hand, I also know quite a few couples who were not
very happy with each other, but could get along, and stayed together
while the kids were young, providing a loving and stable home for them.
Four of my friends divorced after their youngest left the home.
In none of these cases the kids had an illusion that their parents were
totally happy with each other. But call them selfish, because they all
were happy that the parents stayed together and didn't break *their* home.
Of course this is because the parents got along and didn't create a
hateful or stressful environment.

I am not an advocate of martyring oneself for the kids. I have always
said that everyone has one life and is entitled to make it a happy one.
But I think many people fool themselves by thinking that if they are
happy their kids will be happier. Modeling happiness for the kids is
great, but in my experience its is far more important that the kids
receive love and happiness themselves (in forms that is meaningful for them)
than *seeing* how happiness looks.

shinypenny

12-15-2003, 06:38 PM

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FDE4A09.E7A3672D@hotmail.com>... "Bill in Co." wrote: I agree with you Ellie, but don't you agree that it is probably true? That it's better for the kids for the parents to divorce, and become (hopefully) on more friendly terms, than it is for them to stay married, and constantly put each other down, and disrespect each other? No, I don't think we can generalize. It very much depends on the situation, and varies greatly. There are cases where what you say is true, and as many cases where though parents may not be very happy with each other, they can, and do, provide a stable and loving home for their children. I have seen too many divorces where despite the efforts of parents to do the best they can, the kids have suffered greatly - and not because the parents were negligent or bad either, but because of simple realities that their parents end up having their own lives and priorities which shortchange the kids. However, I don't believe it is possible to show any of this with (statistical) certainty by any study!

When you say that you've seen kids suffer, can you tell us more about
what you saw or see, and how?

I'm particularly curious if your experience is with adults looking
back on their childhood, or if you witnessed first hand kids
suffering, and then if you watched them as they grew up and observed
later in life the total impact of the divorce?

Cuz I dunno... maybe I'm being overly sensitive here (as a divored
mother of two kids)... but from my personal observation it seems that
there's an awful lot of adults who still blame their childhood for all
their problems, even those who grew up in intact families. The divorce
just happens to be a particularly easy (and understandable and
sympathetic) target.

As for my kids, I think they're doing very well, and I can't think of
anyone who knows them (in-laws, grandparents, teachers, friends) who
wouldn't agree with that. But there are still times that they get sad.
Just the other day my DD9 said that she sometimes wishes that her mom
and dad lived in the same house..... but then she added, "Except then
I wouldn't have known step-mom and step-dad-to-be!"

Yeah, they have suffered, and if asked now and later as adults, they
will probably tell you they suffered. That's not to say they aren't
better, stronger people.

jen

Bill

12-15-2003, 06:51 PM

Ellie wrote: "Bill in Co." wrote: OK, I hadn't even thought of that possibility - that once the parents divorce, they might abandon the parenting, do their own thing, and shortchange the kids in the process. I was just assuming they wouldn't do that. (Was only thinking of the constant strife in the life aspect). I think I made it clear that I wasn't talking about irresponsible parents who abandon the parenting. Perhaps my views are tainted because of the divorce cases that *I* have seen. I know many couples who divorced, tried their best to parent their kids, but the circumstances of their lives inevitably caused a lot of grief for the kids. Many found themselves move farther than they wanted because of job, new partner, needing a support system and moving closer to their parents, etc. Then there are those (majority that I know) whose kids went through a very tough time while they were dating and having new people come in and out of their lives. Step families and *new* offspring of their parents are another source of distress for the kids. None of this is the parents' fault, they should go one with their lives. And I know there are many cases that the kids ride along these changes without much negative effect, but I just know way too many who don't. On the other hand, I also know quite a few couples who were not very happy with each other, but could get along, and stayed together while the kids were young, providing a loving and stable home for them. Four of my friends divorced after their youngest left the home. In none of these cases the kids had an illusion that their parents were totally happy with each other. But call them selfish, because they all were happy that the parents stayed together and didn't break *their* home. Of course this is because the parents got along and didn't create a hateful or stressful environment. I am not an advocate of martyring oneself for the kids. I have always said that everyone has one life and is entitled to make it a happy one. But I think many people fool themselves by thinking that if they are happy their kids will be happier. Modeling happiness for the kids is great, but in my experience its is far more important that the kids receive love and happiness themselves (in forms that is meaningful for them) than *seeing* how happiness looks.

Well, I just realized something else I hadn't thought about, and that was how
the age of the children adds yet even another dimension to this discussion.
I've been thinking about this all along from my reference point, with an 18
year old daughter. If we are talking about children of a much younger age,
the issue gets even messier - (more slanted against getting a divorce, I
think). Like you said, new people coming in and out of their lives, and all
that...

Ellie

12-15-2003, 08:28 PM

shinypenny wrote:
When you say that you've seen kids suffer, can you tell us more about what you saw or see, and how?

Well, I can give you one example (of the 3 cases that I know closely, because they are all
my kids friends, and surprisingly all 3 sets of children have had problems of the same
nature). After my neighbor divorced (kids 8 and 6 at the time) she met another man whom she
became very close with. He was very good with the children, and they got attached to him
very fast. Their father got laid off and had to take a job about 3 hours away. This was a
big blow to the kids, especially after he also found a girlfriend and his schedule with them
changed quite a bit. In the mean time the mother and new boyfriend broke up. This was
devastating for the two kids. To make it worse, they hated the next boyfriend, even though
she was very careful not to overexpose them too soon. For the next 6 years they both were in
therapy on a regular basis, and still the older boy hasn't come out of his withdrawn
personality. The mother is now married, the kids get along with step dad but are not too
close to him and there is a lot of tension between them. Somehow they have both developed a
sort of shell around them, because (according to their mother) they are afraid of getting
too close to anyone. Of course there is much more, and I don't want to make this too long.
The other children that I know have reacted differently to these changes in their lives, but
in all cases they have had to deal with more uncertainty and change than they deserved, and
though they may appear normal on surface, on deeper examination it is clear that they have
had to deal with more than a young child should.
Cuz I dunno... maybe I'm being overly sensitive here (as a divored mother of two kids)...

Yes, I understand. But as I said every case is unique, and you don't need to look for
patterns. There are many cases, like yours, that everything works out well and children are
better off with the new life. I really think this is one of those areas where
generalizations fail at every level.
but from my personal observation it seems that there's an awful lot of adults who still blame their childhood for all their problems, even those who grew up in intact families. The divorce just happens to be a particularly easy (and understandable and sympathetic) target.

Of course. And as we all know there are intact families which are far more toxic than any
divorced one. In the cases that I have seen, one pattern has been repeating in the divorce
cases, and that is the fact that the parents' lives take some unpredictable turns, and if
the kids aren't very lucky they can get caught in those turns. This is not the fault of the
parents either, it's just that life is unpredictable, and when your parents are divorced you
have far more unplanned and uncertain paths thrown at you!

Bill

12-16-2003, 12:30 AM

Ellie wrote: shinypenny wrote: When you say that you've seen kids suffer, can you tell us more about what you saw or see, and how? Well, I can give you one example (of the 3 cases that I know closely, because they are all my kids friends, and surprisingly all 3 sets of children have had problems of the same nature). After my neighbor divorced (kids 8 and 6 at the time) she met another man whom she became very close with. He was very good with the children, and they got attached to him very fast. Their father got laid off and had to take a job about 3 hours away. This was a big blow to the kids, especially after he also found a girlfriend and his schedule with them changed quite a bit. In the mean time the mother and new boyfriend broke up. This was devastating for the two kids. To make it worse, they hated the next boyfriend, even though she was very careful not to overexpose them too soon. For the next 6 years they both were in therapy on a regular basis, and still the older boy hasn't come out of his withdrawn personality. The mother is now married, the kids get along with step dad but are not too close to him and there is a lot of tension between them. Somehow they have both developed a sort of shell around them, because (according to their mother) they are afraid of getting too close to anyone. Of course there is much more, and I don't want to make this too long.

There's no "somehow" about it. THAT makes perfect sense. at least to me.
The other children that I know have reacted differently to these changes in their lives, but in all cases they have had to deal with more uncertainty and change than they deserved, and though they may appear normal on surface, on deeper examination it is clear that they have had to deal with more than a young child should.

And so does this. (Could be due to some of my background, too). And it is
indeed tragic, and often scarring, as you have so lucidly pointed out.

shinypenny

12-16-2003, 06:37 AM

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FDE8B1B.F439B777@hotmail.com>... shinypenny wrote: When you say that you've seen kids suffer, can you tell us more about what you saw or see, and how? Well, I can give you one example (of the 3 cases that I know closely, because they are all my kids friends, and surprisingly all 3 sets of children have had problems of the same nature). After my neighbor divorced (kids 8 and 6 at the time) she met another man whom she became very close with. He was very good with the children, and they got attached to him very fast. Their father got laid off and had to take a job about 3 hours away. This was a big blow to the kids, especially after he also found a girlfriend and his schedule with them changed quite a bit. In the mean time the mother and new boyfriend broke up. This was devastating for the two kids. To make it worse, they hated the next boyfriend, even though she was very careful not to overexpose them too soon. For the next 6 years they both were in therapy on a regular basis, and still the older boy hasn't come out of his withdrawn personality. The mother is now married, the kids get along with step dad but are not too close to him and there is a lot of tension between them. Somehow they have both developed a sort of shell around them, because (according to their mother) they are afraid of getting too close to anyone.

Understandable, given the situation. I am glad my ex and I have 50-50
custody and both agreed not to introduce the kids to anyone we were
dating until long after things had settled (three years into it). I do
believe that *does* make a huge difference. Unfortunately, the vast
majority of divorcing parents don't or can't manage the same sort of
arrangement.

Of course, the personalities of the children also play a big role, in
my experience. DD11 adjusted much faster. She grieved early on, then
moved on once she arrived at a philosophical perspective that suited
her. DD9 OTOH kept everything in for a long time and was quite
withdrawn. It wasn't until about two years into it that she just
collapsed one day and started grieving for a few months. After that,
she moved on very quickly and became a different child altogether -
more outgoing, more trusting, more talkative.

Of course there is much more, and I don't want to make this too long. The other children that I know have reacted differently to these changes in their lives, but in all cases they have had to deal with more uncertainty and change than they deserved, and though they may appear normal on surface, on deeper examination it is clear that they have had to deal with more than a young child should.

Some children have to deal with death of a parent. During the
depression and times of war, lots of children have to deal with having
a parent live far away. Many children in this mobile country are
forced to deal with frequent moves due to the parents' job changes.
Yes, it is the parents' job to protect their children against too much
chaos and uncertainty (esp that which is in their control); however,
it is just as important, if not more so, to raise their children to
learn to be resilient and adaptable when the inevitable uncertainty
occurs.

Cuz I dunno... maybe I'm being overly sensitive here (as a divored mother of two kids)... Yes, I understand. But as I said every case is unique, and you don't need to look for patterns. There are many cases, like yours, that everything works out well and children are better off with the new life. I really think this is one of those areas where generalizations fail at every level. but from my personal observation it seems that there's an awful lot of adults who still blame their childhood for all their problems, even those who grew up in intact families. The divorce just happens to be a particularly easy (and understandable and sympathetic) target. Of course. And as we all know there are intact families which are far more toxic than any divorced one. In the cases that I have seen, one pattern has been repeating in the divorce cases, and that is the fact that the parents' lives take some unpredictable turns, and if the kids aren't very lucky they can get caught in those turns. This is not the fault of the parents either, it's just that life is unpredictable, and when your parents are divorced you have far more unplanned and uncertain paths thrown at you!

True. We've tried to keep things as predictable as possible, for
example, when I bought my house recently it took me 9 months because I
was determined to keep the kids within the same school district. And
we are very sensitive to making too many changes to our one week
on/one week off schedule.

My DD9 recently read the book Walk Two Moons. It was the first work of
fiction that ever really captivated her (she's not been much of a
reader until this year). I was intrigued to find out what it was about
this book that had her reading up late at night, well past the req'd
30 minutes! So I read the book this weekend -- and yeah, I also
couldn't put it down.

The book is about losing a mother -- one girl loses her mother in a
car accident. Another fears her mother's runaway with another man.
Another's mother is in a mental hospital. DD9 and I sat down last
night and talked about the book. I asked if she was afraid she was
going to lose me. She said no, that wasn't why the book captivated
her. What she liked the most was the main character and how resilient
she was, how she had learned that even when terrible things happen,
life can still go on happily. She said, "Mom, it's just like that
saying of yours: 'A thousand joys, a thousand sorrows.' That's what
life is like! You can't have the good without all the bad. Even the
bad has a sort of beauty to it."

jen

shinypenny

12-16-2003, 06:51 AM

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FDE6A05.28E35E7A@hotmail.com>... "Bill in Co." wrote: OK, I hadn't even thought of that possibility - that once the parents divorce, they might abandon the parenting, do their own thing, and shortchange the kids in the process. I was just assuming they wouldn't do that. (Was only thinking of the constant strife in the life aspect). I think I made it clear that I wasn't talking about irresponsible parents who abandon the parenting. Perhaps my views are tainted because of the divorce cases that *I* have seen. I know many couples who divorced, tried their best to parent their kids, but the circumstances of their lives inevitably caused a lot of grief for the kids. Many found themselves move farther than they wanted because of job, new partner, needing a support system and moving closer to their parents, etc. Then there are those (majority that I know) whose kids went through a very tough time while they were dating and having new people come in and out of their lives. Step families and *new* offspring of their parents are another source of distress for the kids. None of this is the parents' fault, they should go one with their lives. And I know there are many cases that the kids ride along these changes without much negative effect, but I just know way too many who don't. On the other hand, I also know quite a few couples who were not very happy with each other, but could get along, and stayed together while the kids were young, providing a loving and stable home for them. Four of my friends divorced after their youngest left the home. In none of these cases the kids had an illusion that their parents were totally happy with each other. But call them selfish, because they all were happy that the parents stayed together and didn't break *their* home. Of course this is because the parents got along and didn't create a hateful or stressful environment. I am not an advocate of martyring oneself for the kids. I have always said that everyone has one life and is entitled to make it a happy one. But I think many people fool themselves by thinking that if they are happy their kids will be happier. Modeling happiness for the kids is great, but in my experience its is far more important that the kids receive love and happiness themselves (in forms that is meaningful for them) than *seeing* how happiness looks.

That makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

I would say my kids definetly receive a lot of love and happiness from
both my ex and I. In many ways, more than what they would have rec'd
had we stayed together -- the divorce really shook up my ex and made
him realign his priorities in that regard. He ended up daddy-tracking
his career and spends way more time and is more involved with his kids
than he ever was when we were married.

I think we've achieved a good balance and they have the best of both
worlds: they not only receive love and happiness, but *also* have it
modeled for them. But I also understand that we may be the rare case.

jen

Emma Anne

12-16-2003, 10:01 AM

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes: Jim Justjim <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote: In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is pretty damn big). Not if there's no control group. It wouldn't be that hard. Start with a bunch of people having marital difficulties and follow them through life. Unfortunately, that _still_ doesn't give you a control group. You won't be able to know if problems in the "divorced" group came from getting divorced, or from whatever led them to get divorced in the first place! Maybe if they'd lived in a society that forced them to stay married even though they wanted to separate, the resulting problems would be as bad or worse.

Justjim said a better term would be "comparison group" and I think
that's right. But it would still be much better than having nothing for
comparison, as Wallerstein des (last time I checked).

Doug Anderson

12-16-2003, 10:30 AM

mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes: Jim Justjim <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote: > In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is > pretty damn big). Not if there's no control group. It wouldn't be that hard. Start with a bunch of people having marital difficulties and follow them through life. Unfortunately, that _still_ doesn't give you a control group. You won't be able to know if problems in the "divorced" group came from getting divorced, or from whatever led them to get divorced in the first place! Maybe if they'd lived in a society that forced them to stay married even though they wanted to separate, the resulting problems would be as bad or worse. Justjim said a better term would be "comparison group" and I think that's right. But it would still be much better than having nothing for comparison, as Wallerstein des (last time I checked).

I disagree that having a comparator group would be an improvement.
Let me think about how to explain this.

OK. Suppose you decide to study a school. We'll call it school A.
You want to know specifically how well the curriculum of school A
works.

You look at test results from school A. There are now two things you
can do. You can try to describe those results, and what the tests are
about, and what children at school A know.

Out of this you get useful information about how successful school A
is at teaching certain things, but you get no comparative information
at all. So this study has merit, but it also has weaknesses.

Now you say "oh, we'd like to have a comparator group." We're going
to look at school B.

You compare test scores. You discover that test scores at school A
are much better than at school B. You conclude that this is evidence
that school A's curriculum is good. BZZZT! You've just screwed up.
Unless you've ensured that school A and school B are identical in
every possible way _besides_ the curriculum, you can make _no_
conclusion about the curriculum of school A.

Maybe school B has all the special ed students in the district. Maybe
school A is in the wealthy neigborhood and school B is in the poor
neighborhood. Maybe school B is 5 times the size of school A. Maybe
a dozen other things that have much stronger effects than the
curriculum distinguish school A and school B, and you can't even
imagine half of them.

So I claim _before_ you had the comparator group you had interesting
anecdotal data. Adding the comparator group added nothing, and
potentially it made your study misleading if you really use the
comparator group to do comparisons.

I hope this makes sense. If it doesn't make sense to you, you are in
good company unfortunately!

Emma Anne

12-16-2003, 10:49 AM

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
You look at test results from school A. There are now two things you can do. You can try to describe those results, and what the tests are about, and what children at school A know. Out of this you get useful information about how successful school A is at teaching certain things, but you get no comparative information at all. So this study has merit, but it also has weaknesses. Now you say "oh, we'd like to have a comparator group." We're going to look at school B.
(snip)

But what I want to do is take a group of kids who started out at school
A and compare kids who considered transferring to school B, but didn't,
with the ones who actually transfered to school B. Yes, there are still
confounding factors, because one group did transfer. But it is better
than comparing the group who transfered with a group that has always
been happy at school A.

Jim Justjim

12-16-2003, 10:53 AM

mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) wrote: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes: Jim Justjim <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote: > In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 > is pretty damn big). Not if there's no control group. It wouldn't be that hard. Start with a bunch of people having marital difficulties and follow them through life. Unfortunately, that _still_ doesn't give you a control group. You won't be able to know if problems in the "divorced" group came from getting divorced, or from whatever led them to get divorced in the first place! Maybe if they'd lived in a society that forced them to stay married even though they wanted to separate, the resulting problems would be as bad or worse. Justjim said a better term would be "comparison group" and I think that's right. But it would still be much better than having nothing for comparison, as Wallerstein des (last time I checked).

A comparison group is better (in most cases) than nothing else. It is a
"comparison" group, rather than a "control" group, because you only have a
control group in an experiment (which means random assignment to
treatment). No one is going to allow you to randomly assign adult parents
to each other, children to the adult parents, and families to the
"experimental" condition of divorce. It is a small point, though; most
people use "control" group incorrectly. Just trying to advance the
benefits of proper methodology :-)

Doug Anderson

12-16-2003, 11:04 AM

mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: You look at test results from school A. There are now two things you can do. You can try to describe those results, and what the tests are about, and what children at school A know. Out of this you get useful information about how successful school A is at teaching certain things, but you get no comparative information at all. So this study has merit, but it also has weaknesses. Now you say "oh, we'd like to have a comparator group." We're going to look at school B. (snip) But what I want to do is take a group of kids who started out at school A and compare kids who considered transferring to school B, but didn't, with the ones who actually transfered to school B. Yes, there are still confounding factors, because one group did transfer. But it is better than comparing the group who transfered with a group that has always been happy at school A.

OK, you can do that. But you have to ask yourself what is the
difference between the kids (and their families) who _did_ transfer
the kids, and the kids (and their families) who didn't.

For example, in this example, families that transfer their kids to
different schools because they perceive those schools as being better
have a very different attitude toward education.

In the "divorce" example, I'd bet the number of long-time married
couples who have never considered divorce during a period of
frustration is vanishingly small. But that doesn't make that group
comparable to people who actually _get_ divorced!

So I think the task of getting an appropriate comparison group is hard
enough so that attemps will just muddy the water.

Jim Justjim

12-16-2003, 11:18 AM

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes: > Jim Justjim <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) > > 131 is pretty damn big). > > Not if there's no control group. It wouldn't be that hard. Start > with a bunch of people having marital difficulties and follow them > through life. Unfortunately, that _still_ doesn't give you a control group. You won't be able to know if problems in the "divorced" group came from getting divorced, or from whatever led them to get divorced in the first place! Maybe if they'd lived in a society that forced them to stay married even though they wanted to separate, the resulting problems would be as bad or worse. Justjim said a better term would be "comparison group" and I think that's right. But it would still be much better than having nothing for comparison, as Wallerstein des (last time I checked). I disagree that having a comparator group would be an improvement. Let me think about how to explain this. OK. Suppose you decide to study a school. We'll call it school A. You want to know specifically how well the curriculum of school A works. You look at test results from school A. There are now two things you can do. You can try to describe those results, and what the tests are about, and what children at school A know. Out of this you get useful information about how successful school A is at teaching certain things, but you get no comparative information at all. So this study has merit, but it also has weaknesses. Now you say "oh, we'd like to have a comparator group." We're going to look at school B. You compare test scores. You discover that test scores at school A are much better than at school B. You conclude that this is evidence that school A's curriculum is good. BZZZT! You've just screwed up. Unless you've ensured that school A and school B are identical in every possible way _besides_ the curriculum, you can make _no_ conclusion about the curriculum of school A. Maybe school B has all the special ed students in the district. Maybe school A is in the wealthy neigborhood and school B is in the poor neighborhood. Maybe school B is 5 times the size of school A. Maybe a dozen other things that have much stronger effects than the curriculum distinguish school A and school B, and you can't even imagine half of them. So I claim _before_ you had the comparator group you had interesting anecdotal data. Adding the comparator group added nothing, and potentially it made your study misleading if you really use the comparator group to do comparisons. I hope this makes sense. If it doesn't make sense to you, you are in good company unfortunately!

It makes sense, but you are wrong (sorry).

First, you said that you would "test" kids in school A to find out if their
curriculum is any good. What kind of test are you using? If you are using
a standardized test (which is probably what you would want to be using) you
DO have a comparison group - the standardization sample.

If you are not using a standardized test, you are using a "curriculum based
measure", which is basically a test made up from the information you have
presented in the curriculum, then you know nothing about the curriculum,
only the ability of the students to parrot it back. Curriculum based
measures are not good at discribing classes, schools or groups, just
indivduals (and then you will be comparing the individual to where he or
she "should be"; comparing the student to a hypothetical comparison group).

You are absolutely right about comparing school A and school B (the things
that you discussed are called "confounds"). If you were actually doing
this for a research publication you would EITHER choose a disreputable
publication, OR you would MATCH schools. And you probably would not want
to look at only one school using that curriculum, you would need to find
several schools using school A's curriculum and several schools using
school B's curriculum. Then you would match them up (one from school A and
one from school B) so that you are comparing more similar subjects
(matched-pair design).

Of course, many researchers just throw research together, in which case you
would be right: anecdotal information IS better and more discriptive,
particualrly when you KNOW that it is anecdotal and are not under the
impression that it research done in a quisi-experimental design.

Jim Justjim

12-16-2003, 11:21 AM

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: You look at test results from school A. There are now two things you can do. You can try to describe those results, and what the tests are about, and what children at school A know. Out of this you get useful information about how successful school A is at teaching certain things, but you get no comparative information at all. So this study has merit, but it also has weaknesses. Now you say "oh, we'd like to have a comparator group." We're going to look at school B. (snip) But what I want to do is take a group of kids who started out at school A and compare kids who considered transferring to school B, but didn't, with the ones who actually transfered to school B. Yes, there are still confounding factors, because one group did transfer. But it is better than comparing the group who transfered with a group that has always been happy at school A. OK, you can do that. But you have to ask yourself what is the difference between the kids (and their families) who _did_ transfer the kids, and the kids (and their families) who didn't. For example, in this example, families that transfer their kids to different schools because they perceive those schools as being better have a very different attitude toward education. In the "divorce" example, I'd bet the number of long-time married couples who have never considered divorce during a period of frustration is vanishingly small. But that doesn't make that group comparable to people who actually _get_ divorced! So I think the task of getting an appropriate comparison group is hard enough so that attemps will just muddy the water.

I agree with the last statement.

Doug Anderson

12-16-2003, 11:29 AM

justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: > mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes: > > > Jim Justjim <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) > > > 131 is pretty damn big). > > > > Not if there's no control group. It wouldn't be that hard. Start > > with a bunch of people having marital difficulties and follow them > > through life. > > Unfortunately, that _still_ doesn't give you a control group. You > won't be able to know if problems in the "divorced" group came from > getting divorced, or from whatever led them to get divorced in the > first place! Maybe if they'd lived in a society that forced them to > stay married even though they wanted to separate, the resulting > problems would be as bad or worse. Justjim said a better term would be "comparison group" and I think that's right. But it would still be much better than having nothing for comparison, as Wallerstein des (last time I checked). I disagree that having a comparator group would be an improvement. Let me think about how to explain this. OK. Suppose you decide to study a school. We'll call it school A. You want to know specifically how well the curriculum of school A works. You look at test results from school A. There are now two things you can do. You can try to describe those results, and what the tests are about, and what children at school A know. Out of this you get useful information about how successful school A is at teaching certain things, but you get no comparative information at all. So this study has merit, but it also has weaknesses. Now you say "oh, we'd like to have a comparator group." We're going to look at school B. You compare test scores. You discover that test scores at school A are much better than at school B. You conclude that this is evidence that school A's curriculum is good. BZZZT! You've just screwed up. Unless you've ensured that school A and school B are identical in every possible way _besides_ the curriculum, you can make _no_ conclusion about the curriculum of school A. Maybe school B has all the special ed students in the district. Maybe school A is in the wealthy neigborhood and school B is in the poor neighborhood. Maybe school B is 5 times the size of school A. Maybe a dozen other things that have much stronger effects than the curriculum distinguish school A and school B, and you can't even imagine half of them. So I claim _before_ you had the comparator group you had interesting anecdotal data. Adding the comparator group added nothing, and potentially it made your study misleading if you really use the comparator group to do comparisons. I hope this makes sense. If it doesn't make sense to you, you are in good company unfortunately! It makes sense, but you are wrong (sorry). First, you said that you would "test" kids in school A to find out if their curriculum is any good. What kind of test are you using? If you are using a standardized test (which is probably what you would want to be using) you DO have a comparison group - the standardization sample.

I'm using test generically. I don't care what sort of measure you use
- the same problems result. If you use a standardized test, you do
indeed have a comparison group, and it is useless for _exactly_ the same
reasons as the ones I've outlined: there will certainly be a number
of factors which distinguish school A from the comparison group, so
you will _not_ be able to conclude that school A's curriculum is
responsible for any observed variation.
If you are not using a standardized test, you are using a "curriculum based measure", which is basically a test made up from the information you have presented in the curriculum, then you know nothing about the curriculum, only the ability of the students to parrot it back. Curriculum based measures are not good at discribing classes, schools or groups, just indivduals (and then you will be comparing the individual to where he or she "should be"; comparing the student to a hypothetical comparison group). You are absolutely right about comparing school A and school B (the things that you discussed are called "confounds"). If you were actually doing this for a research publication you would EITHER choose a disreputable publication, OR you would MATCH schools. And you probably would not want to look at only one school using that curriculum, you would need to find several schools using school A's curriculum and several schools using school B's curriculum. Then you would match them up (one from school A and one from school B) so that you are comparing more similar subjects (matched-pair design).

Right. If you did this for a larger number of schools you could
gather more convincing data.

But if you are going to hope to get good information from a matched pair
design, you need to be able to isolate all the _other_ variables which
are important, and match schools based on those.

Difficult to do for schools, well nigh impossible for families.

So I continue to maintain that no comparison group is better than one
which will necessarily be poorly matched.
Of course, many researchers just throw research together, in which case you would be right: anecdotal information IS better and more discriptive, particualrly when you KNOW that it is anecdotal and are not under the impression that it research done in a quisi-experimental design.

Yeah. I'm not saying anecdotal information is useless. It is often
quite interesting. It should just be recognized for what it is.

Jim Justjim

12-16-2003, 11:57 AM

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes: > Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes: > > > > > Jim Justjim <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal > > > > study) 131 is pretty damn big). > > > > > > Not if there's no control group. It wouldn't be that hard. > > > Start with a bunch of people having marital difficulties and > > > follow them through life. > > > > Unfortunately, that _still_ doesn't give you a control group. > > You won't be able to know if problems in the "divorced" group > > came from getting divorced, or from whatever led them to get > > divorced in the first place! Maybe if they'd lived in a society > > that forced them to stay married even though they wanted to > > separate, the resulting problems would be as bad or worse. > > Justjim said a better term would be "comparison group" and I think > that's right. But it would still be much better than having > nothing for comparison, as Wallerstein des (last time I checked). I disagree that having a comparator group would be an improvement. Let me think about how to explain this. OK. Suppose you decide to study a school. We'll call it school A. You want to know specifically how well the curriculum of school A works. You look at test results from school A. There are now two things you can do. You can try to describe those results, and what the tests are about, and what children at school A know. Out of this you get useful information about how successful school A is at teaching certain things, but you get no comparative information at all. So this study has merit, but it also has weaknesses. Now you say "oh, we'd like to have a comparator group." We're going to look at school B. You compare test scores. You discover that test scores at school A are much better than at school B. You conclude that this is evidence that school A's curriculum is good. BZZZT! You've just screwed up. Unless you've ensured that school A and school B are identical in every possible way _besides_ the curriculum, you can make _no_ conclusion about the curriculum of school A. Maybe school B has all the special ed students in the district. Maybe school A is in the wealthy neigborhood and school B is in the poor neighborhood. Maybe school B is 5 times the size of school A. Maybe a dozen other things that have much stronger effects than the curriculum distinguish school A and school B, and you can't even imagine half of them. So I claim _before_ you had the comparator group you had interesting anecdotal data. Adding the comparator group added nothing, and potentially it made your study misleading if you really use the comparator group to do comparisons. I hope this makes sense. If it doesn't make sense to you, you are in good company unfortunately! It makes sense, but you are wrong (sorry). First, you said that you would "test" kids in school A to find out if their curriculum is any good. What kind of test are you using? If you are using a standardized test (which is probably what you would want to be using) you DO have a comparison group - the standardization sample. I'm using test generically. I don't care what sort of measure you use - the same problems result. If you use a standardized test, you do indeed have a comparison group, and it is useless for _exactly_ the same reasons as the ones I've outlined: there will certainly be a number of factors which distinguish school A from the comparison group, so you will _not_ be able to conclude that school A's curriculum is responsible for any observed variation.

There is no such thing as a "generic" test (especially in education,
curriculum and measurement - which I realize isn't REALLY what we are
talking about, we are getting side-tracked). The type of test that you use
DOES matter (see the paragraph below on curriculum based measures).
If you are not using a standardized test, you are using a "curriculum based measure", which is basically a test made up from the information you have presented in the curriculum, then you know nothing about the curriculum, only the ability of the students to parrot it back. Curriculum based measures are not good at discribing classes, schools or groups, just indivduals (and then you will be comparing the individual to where he or she "should be"; comparing the student to a hypothetical comparison group). You are absolutely right about comparing school A and school B (the things that you discussed are called "confounds"). If you were actually doing this for a research publication you would EITHER choose a disreputable publication, OR you would MATCH schools. And you probably would not want to look at only one school using that curriculum, you would need to find several schools using school A's curriculum and several schools using school B's curriculum. Then you would match them up (one from school A and one from school B) so that you are comparing more similar subjects (matched-pair design). Right. If you did this for a larger number of schools you could gather more convincing data. But if you are going to hope to get good information from a matched pair design, you need to be able to isolate all the _other_ variables which are important, and match schools based on those. Difficult to do for schools, well nigh impossible for families.

Not as difficult as you might think for schools, but probably more than
"nigh impossible" for families, because they are not apt to give you much
of the data that you would need to use to match.
So I continue to maintain that no comparison group is better than one which will necessarily be poorly matched.

I disagree, here. Anecdotal research is only discribing what the observer
sees in the sample that is chosen. I am not saying that it is useless (I
like Wallerstein's work), I am saying that there are other ways to gather
data.
Of course, many researchers just throw research together, in which case you would be right: anecdotal information IS better and more discriptive, particualrly when you KNOW that it is anecdotal and are not under the impression that it research done in a quisi-experimental design. Yeah. I'm not saying anecdotal information is useless. It is often quite interesting. It should just be recognized for what it is.

I definitely agree with this. As long as you give it the weight that it
deserves, anecdotal research is fine. Sometimes, though, people DO give it
too much weight. All of the problems you discribed with matched pairs also
are found in anecdotal information - basically, is it generalizable beyond
the sample you have studied. Of course, you can say that about ALL
research! That is why, in the social sciences, you use statistics to
report you data. You build a confidence interval and you set a "p" value
that tells you when you have seen something unusual or just flucuation by
chance.

Doug Anderson

12-16-2003, 02:30 PM

justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:
There is no such thing as a "generic" test (especially in education, curriculum and measurement - which I realize isn't REALLY what we are talking about, we are getting side-tracked).

Right. I don't assert that there is. My objection to most comparison
groups is, however, a generic objection.
The type of test that you use DOES matter (see the paragraph below on curriculum based measures).

It might matter. It doesn't matter in the example I gave since even
using a large comparison group to draw conclusions about one school's
curriculum doesn't help you isolate the curricular differences of that
school from other things that make that school different from the
comparison group.
So I continue to maintain that no comparison group is better than one which will necessarily be poorly matched. I disagree, here. Anecdotal research is only discribing what the observer sees in the sample that is chosen. I am not saying that it is useless (I like Wallerstein's work), I am saying that there are other ways to gather data.

Hmm. You disagree with my statement that no comparison group is
better than a poorly matched one? Really? You've been so sensible
hitherto. Maybe what you really meant was that you disagree that it
is insuperably hard to find a well-matched comparison group. That's
true, it is sometimes possible to do that.
Of course, many researchers just throw research together, in which case you would be right: anecdotal information IS better and more discriptive, particualrly when you KNOW that it is anecdotal and are not under the impression that it research done in a quisi-experimental design. Yeah. I'm not saying anecdotal information is useless. It is often quite interesting. It should just be recognized for what it is. I definitely agree with this. As long as you give it the weight that it deserves, anecdotal research is fine. Sometimes, though, people DO give it too much weight. All of the problems you discribed with matched pairs also are found in anecdotal information - basically, is it generalizable beyond the sample you have studied.

Yes. The real problem in research is when do you get data with which
you can generalize with some confidence. You don't get it with
anecdotal information. You _do_ get it (sometimes) with randomly
chosen subject and control groups.

The tricky bit is what's in between. And matched pairs comparison
groups are all well and good if you have _really_ succeeded in
identifyin the other possible variables, and matching them.
Of course, you can say that about ALL research! That is why, in the social sciences, you use statistics to report you data. You build a confidence interval and you set a "p" value that tells you when you have seen something unusual or just flucuation by chance.

Right. But your statistics needs to be based on random samples. When
you haven't got that, any "statistics" done by the researcher is often
just so much legerdemain. And this is why I'm leery of comparison
groups without _very_ careful justification.

Amy D

12-16-2003, 04:37 PM

"Bill in Co." wrote:
Ellie wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: I think that would be a "strawman strategy." There are people (I'm one of them) who say that children are often better off with divorced parents than with married parents who don't love each other and thus provide the children with a model for a loveless marriage when the children reach adulthood. What do you base your view on? Wallerstein's work is held up (not by her) as showing that my point of view is wrong (which it doesn't). What kind of work would be needed to show you are wrong? What I am trying to understand is whether there is ANY kind of study possible to prove one way or another. It seems to me that this is an area where almost no opinion can be proven wrong (or right), because practically it's almost impossible to have a study that covers everything. I agree with you Ellie, but don't you agree that it is probably true? That it's better for the kids for the parents to divorce, and become (hopefully) on more friendly terms, than it is for them to stay married, and constantly put each other down, and disrespect each other?

If no one is willing to "fix" the marriage and it is a constant state of unfriendly
environment it's probably better for kids to divorce, IMO. In an ideal scenario,
the kids might get a chance at a "role model" parental relationship <albeit
stepparent> in the future before they are out on their own.......but in a worst
case scenario the custodial parent will repeatedly get in "bad relationships"
because they weren't willing to work on their marriage...... :)

Regardeless, you could have 3 children involved in the divorce and they will all
react differently. One may thrive from the divorce while another will totally fall
apart.......probably why there really can't be legitimate studies of the effect of
divorce on kids....it would all just be theory anyway....no one could know what the
effect of divorce would be on my kids but me........even though my marriage seems
to be going south on a regular basis here regularly....how it will affect my kids
is my primary concern.......

So who knows? :)

Affect? Effect? I'm so confused......I need to start doing homework with the
kids. Sorry for any grammatical errors! :)

amy

Bill

12-16-2003, 05:06 PM

Amy D wrote: "Bill in Co." wrote: Ellie wrote: Doug Anderson wrote:> I think that would be a "strawman strategy." There are people (I'm> one of them) who say that children are often better off with divorced> parents than with married parents who don't love each other and thus> provide the children with a model for a loveless marriage when the> children reach adulthood. What do you base your view on?> Wallerstein's work is held up (not by her) as showing that my point of> view is wrong (which it doesn't). What kind of work would be needed to show you are wrong? What I am trying to understand is whether there is ANY kind of study possible to prove one way or another. It seems to me that this is an area where almost no opinion can be proven wrong (or right), because practically it's almost impossible to have a study that covers everything. I agree with you Ellie, but don't you agree that it is probably true? That it's better for the kids for the parents to divorce, and become (hopefully) on more friendly terms, than it is for them to stay married, and constantly put each other down, and disrespect each other? If no one is willing to "fix" the marriage and it is a constant state of unfriendly environment it's probably better for kids to divorce, IMO. In an ideal scenario, the kids might get a chance at a "role model" parental relationship <albeit stepparent> in the future before they are out on their own.......but in a worst case scenario the custodial parent will repeatedly get in "bad relationships" because they weren't willing to work on their marriage...... :) Regardeless, you could have 3 children involved in the divorce and they will all react differently. One may thrive from the divorce while another will totally fall apart.......probably why there really can't be legitimate studies of the effect of divorce on kids....it would all just be theory anyway....no one could know what the effect of divorce would be on my kids but me........even though my marriage seems to be going south on a regular basis here regularly....how it will affect my kids is my primary concern....... So who knows? :) Affect? Effect? I'm so confused......I need to start doing homework with
the kids. Sorry for any grammatical errors! :) amy

"Affect" is normally a (transitive) verb, and "effect" is normally a noun, if
that helps.

Amy D

12-16-2003, 05:48 PM

Jim Justjim wrote:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: > You look at test results from school A. There are now two things you > can do. You can try to describe those results, and what the tests > are about, and what children at school A know. > > Out of this you get useful information about how successful school A > is at teaching certain things, but you get no comparative information > at all. So this study has merit, but it also has weaknesses. > > > > Now you say "oh, we'd like to have a comparator group." We're going > to look at school B. > (snip) But what I want to do is take a group of kids who started out at school A and compare kids who considered transferring to school B, but didn't, with the ones who actually transfered to school B. Yes, there are still confounding factors, because one group did transfer. But it is better than comparing the group who transfered with a group that has always been happy at school A. OK, you can do that. But you have to ask yourself what is the difference between the kids (and their families) who _did_ transfer the kids, and the kids (and their families) who didn't. For example, in this example, families that transfer their kids to different schools because they perceive those schools as being better have a very different attitude toward education. In the "divorce" example, I'd bet the number of long-time married couples who have never considered divorce during a period of frustration is vanishingly small. But that doesn't make that group comparable to people who actually _get_ divorced! So I think the task of getting an appropriate comparison group is hard enough so that attemps will just muddy the water. I agree with the last statement.

Speaking of "transferring kids to a better school".....sorry to stray off
topic..... :)

We bought a house in a decent "small town atmosphere" neighborhood and moved
our kindergartener out of a 'brand new school" to a kindergarten building full
of mold and mildew......I instantly flipped out.......much to the horror of the
principal and other parents. :) His teacher is pushing me to stay on top of
this issue......I've spoken to about the "toppest" guy I can without going on
to the the state level.....the executive manager of maintennance and
grounds.....he guarantees the moldy ceiling tiles will be replaced INSTANTLY
and the entire ceiling will be replaced in time. I asked him if this would
resolve the entire issue and he says "I think so".......I can't imagine getting
mold/mildew out of a building by just replacing ceiling tiles but ANYTHING is a
start. My last conversation with him was a month ago.......and nothing has
been done......

Since it is a Title 1 school I can transfer him out but I'm really worried
about the affects of transferring him TWICE in kindergarten!! Of course his
health is at utmost importance....he had sinus problems in the beginning but
seems fine now....although it's winter now so the mold isn't as prevalant. If
I was going to tranfer him I'd do it now....before the next quarter begins
after Christmas......but he is a difficult child.....probably ADHD.....I hate
the constant disruptions.

I am trying to get him into a magnet school next year but there is no
guarantee....if they don't do anything by the end of the school year maybe I'll
apply for a transfer to another nearby elementary if he can't get into the
magnet school.

Will I lose my "*****ing rights" if I transfer him out? Not if we own a house
in the district, right?

I am still going to fight to get this school up to par before my 18 month old
starts school. It's unacceptable and there is absolutely no excuse! It's no
secret Alabama schools are broke.....but this one is getting pushed to the
bottom of the list because there is a large number of "under-priveledged" kids
since the zone encompasses a housing project. That is no excuse! So much for
"no child left behind", huh?

So, what would your next step be? I'm thinking of sneaking pictures and
dropping them off at the local news stations. I'll be there on Thursday
helping with my son's Christmas party -- I know his teacher would cover for me
if I want to take pictures. The mold is evident on ceiling tiles.....

Sorry for straying off topic.... :)

amy

Amy D

12-16-2003, 08:31 PM

>ubject: Re: Effect of divorce on childrenFrom: "Bill in Co." nowhere@earthlink.netDate: 12/16/2003 7:06 PM Central Standard TimeMessage-id: <g_NDb.7362$Pg1.4964@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>Amy D wrote: "Bill in Co." wrote: Ellie wrote:> Doug Anderson wrote:>>> I think that would be a "strawman strategy." There are people (I'm>> one of them) who say that children are often better off with divorced>> parents than with married parents who don't love each other and thus>> provide the children with a model for a loveless marriage when the>> children reach adulthood.>> What do you base your view on?>>> Wallerstein's work is held up (not by her) as showing that my point of>> view is wrong (which it doesn't).>> What kind of work would be needed to show you are wrong?>> What I am trying to understand is whether there is ANY kind of study> possible to prove one way or another. It seems to me that this is an area> where almost no opinion can be proven wrong (or right), becausepractically> it's almost impossible to have a study that covers everything. I agree with you Ellie, but don't you agree that it is probably true?That it's better for the kids for the parents to divorce, and become(hopefully) on more friendly terms, than it is for them to stay married, andconstantly put each other down, and disrespect each other? If no one is willing to "fix" the marriage and it is a constant state of unfriendly environment it's probably better for kids to divorce, IMO. Inan ideal scenario, the kids might get a chance at a "role model" parental relationship <albeit stepparent> in the future before they are out on their own.......but in a worst case scenario the custodial parent will repeatedly get in "bad relationships" because they weren't willing to work on their marriage...... :) Regardeless, you could have 3 children involved in the divorce and theywill all react differently. One may thrive from the divorce while another will totally fall apart.......probably why there really can't be legitimate studies of the effect of divorce on kids....it would all just be theory anyway....no one could know what the effect of divorce would be on my kids but me........even though my marriage seems to be going south on a regular basis here regularly....how it will affect my kids is my primary concern....... So who knows? :) Affect? Effect? I'm so confused......I need to start doing homework withthe kids. Sorry for any grammatical errors! :) amy"Affect" is normally a (transitive) verb, and "effect" is normally a noun, ifthat helps.

Thanks. :)

amy

Paul Botts

12-16-2003, 10:07 PM

"Bill in Co." <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:PozDb.6557$Pg1.624@newsread1.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
The other children that I know have reacted differently to these changes in their lives, but in all cases they have
had to deal with more uncertainty and change than they deserved, and though
they may appear normal on surface, on deeper examination it is clear that
they have had to deal with more than a young child should. And so does this. (Could be due to some of my background, too). And
it is indeed tragic, and often scarring, as you have so lucidly pointed out.

That all rings true. I am a child of divorce myself, so of course are my
three siblings who are quite spread apart in age, and so are several very
close lifelong friends. I can speak from plenty of firsthand experience
about the effect of emotional uncertainty on children. My parents got
divorced when I was 12 and my adolescence was pretty damned difficult for a
while there.

Yet I am firmly in the camp that it is likely better for kids for their
parent's bad marriage to break up than for it to stay together in spite of
the adult unhappiness.

Of course I am carefully saying "likely" because we simply cannot generalize
any more precisely than that -- there's just too many variables here and as
the Russian author said, every unhappy family is unhappy in its own special
way.

That said, it is quite clear to me in hindsight that things did not start
getting better overall for me and my siblings until our parents broke up.
The same is true for the majority of others who I think I know well enough
to form an opinion on the point.

And there is a flip side to it that my wife's example has really put into
stark relief for me. Her parents stayed married until she was in her early
30s, and it would have been _so_ much better for her if they hadn't. My wife
was still discovering in therapy well into adulthood new ways in which her
parents' relationship during her childhood years left her emotionally
scarred. This is without any physical abuse or alcoholism or anything that
overt, simply two people who spent their kids' entire childhoods in constant
emotional combat. I met my in-laws when my wife was in her early 20s, and
the experience gave me a new appreciation of my own parents -- I was shocked
and appalled by how they treated each other and the effect it had on their
(by then young adult) children. Over the years I gradually learned that my
wife's childhood had been exactly the same as what I saw, or worse out of
the earshot of outsiders.

My wife and both her parents to this day consider it an article of faith
that divorce is a tragedy for young children. I find that ironic in the
extreme: far from the stereotypical "never got over the divorce," my wife
and her siblings have never recovered from her parents' _marriage_. At this
point it's questionable whether they ever will. They'd have had a better
shot at it if they had been luckier: if their parents had split up when they
were young.

shinypenny

12-17-2003, 10:33 AM

"Paul Botts" <paulbotts@sbcglobalspam.net> wrote in message news:<IoSDb.12827$aw2.6874012@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>...
And there is a flip side to it that my wife's example has really put into stark relief for me. Her parents stayed married until she was in her early 30s, and it would have been _so_ much better for her if they hadn't. My wife was still discovering in therapy well into adulthood new ways in which her parents' relationship during her childhood years left her emotionally scarred.

Yeah, my fiance feels the same way about his folks, too. I've always
reminded him that, despite it all, it's very obvious to me that his
folks thought they were doing the best thing possible for him. They
did the best they could at the time. I think most parents do.

Interestingly enough, we've seen a glimmer of hope recently. His
folks, who've been married over 40 years, have started getting along
better with each other. They almost seem a little romantic.

jen

Paul Botts

12-17-2003, 07:28 PM

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0312171033.6c0bf407@posting.google.c om... Interestingly enough, we've seen a glimmer of hope recently. His folks, who've been married over 40 years, have started getting along better with each other. They almost seem a little romantic.

My wife's parents suddenly split apart as empty-nesters a few years ago: my
mother-in-law announced one day that she had taken up with her YMCA swimming
coach and she was filing for divorce. And divorce they did, with a minimum
of fuss, actually.

Since then, my wife's relationships with both her parents have gotten
dramatically better -- with her mother a little bit and with her father a
_lot_. (The swimming coach is long since out of the picture). In fact her
relationship with her Dad is better now than she can ever remember -- that
change began when he shocked the entire family by dealing with such a
humiliating and infuriating turn of events with class and maturity. Before
all these events she was always much closer and more comfortable with her
Mom -- if you'd told me 10 years ago that one day my wife would be closer to
her Dad than her Mom I'd have laughed in your face.

(None of which has altered my wife's reflexive assumption that a divorce is
inherently a tragedy for kids).

Joy

12-25-2003, 09:47 AM

"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDFB5E9.F8DFF126@joimail.com... Jim Justjim wrote: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes: > Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > You look at test results from school A. There are now two things
you > > can do. You can try to describe those results, and what the tests > > are about, and what children at school A know. > > > > Out of this you get useful information about how successful school
A > > is at teaching certain things, but you get no comparative
information > > at all. So this study has merit, but it also has weaknesses. > > > > > > > > Now you say "oh, we'd like to have a comparator group." We're
going > > to look at school B. > > > (snip) > > But what I want to do is take a group of kids who started out at
school > A and compare kids who considered transferring to school B, but
didn't, > with the ones who actually transfered to school B. Yes, there are > still confounding factors, because one group did transfer. But it
is > better than comparing the group who transfered with a group that has > always been happy at school A. OK, you can do that. But you have to ask yourself what is the difference between the kids (and their families) who _did_ transfer the kids, and the kids (and their families) who didn't. For example, in this example, families that transfer their kids to different schools because they perceive those schools as being better have a very different attitude toward education. In the "divorce" example, I'd bet the number of long-time married couples who have never considered divorce during a period of frustration is vanishingly small. But that doesn't make that group comparable to people who actually _get_ divorced! So I think the task of getting an appropriate comparison group is hard enough so that attemps will just muddy the water. I agree with the last statement. Speaking of "transferring kids to a better school".....sorry to stray off topic..... :) We bought a house in a decent "small town atmosphere" neighborhood and
moved our kindergartener out of a 'brand new school" to a kindergarten building
full of mold and mildew......I instantly flipped out.......much to the horror
of the principal and other parents. :) His teacher is pushing me to stay on top
of this issue......I've spoken to about the "toppest" guy I can without going
on to the the state level.....the executive manager of maintennance and grounds.....he guarantees the moldy ceiling tiles will be replaced
INSTANTLY and the entire ceiling will be replaced in time. I asked him if this
would resolve the entire issue and he says "I think so".......I can't imagine
getting mold/mildew out of a building by just replacing ceiling tiles but ANYTHING
is a start. My last conversation with him was a month ago.......and nothing
has been done......

A month! Unbelievable. In my school district, they *shut down the high
school for a month* recently, when mold was discovered in the ceiling.
Completely closed the school, and brought in an outside company to do clean
up. Yes, it was a *massive* logistics problem, wreaked havoc with the
schedule and bus routes, cost a significant sum of money, etc - but our
school board felt the health of the students was paramount. This is not in
a wealthy school district, either. It is just inconceivable to me that
there would still be moldy ceiling tiles after a month.

Have you talked to the health department?

Amy D

12-30-2003, 11:38 PM

Joy wrote: "Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message news:3FDFB5E9.F8DFF126@joimail.com... Jim Justjim wrote: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: > mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes: > > > Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > You look at test results from school A. There are now two things you > > > can do. You can try to describe those results, and what the tests > > > are about, and what children at school A know. > > > > > > Out of this you get useful information about how successful school A > > > is at teaching certain things, but you get no comparative information > > > at all. So this study has merit, but it also has weaknesses. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now you say "oh, we'd like to have a comparator group." We're going > > > to look at school B. > > > > > (snip) > > > > But what I want to do is take a group of kids who started out at school > > A and compare kids who considered transferring to school B, but didn't, > > with the ones who actually transfered to school B. Yes, there are > > still confounding factors, because one group did transfer. But it is > > better than comparing the group who transfered with a group that has > > always been happy at school A. > > OK, you can do that. But you have to ask yourself what is the > difference between the kids (and their families) who _did_ transfer > the kids, and the kids (and their families) who didn't. > > For example, in this example, families that transfer their kids to > different schools because they perceive those schools as being better > have a very different attitude toward education. > > In the "divorce" example, I'd bet the number of long-time married > couples who have never considered divorce during a period of > frustration is vanishingly small. But that doesn't make that group > comparable to people who actually _get_ divorced! > > So I think the task of getting an appropriate comparison group is hard > enough so that attemps will just muddy the water. I agree with the last statement. Speaking of "transferring kids to a better school".....sorry to stray off topic..... :) We bought a house in a decent "small town atmosphere" neighborhood and moved our kindergartener out of a 'brand new school" to a kindergarten building full of mold and mildew......I instantly flipped out.......much to the horror of the principal and other parents. :) His teacher is pushing me to stay on top of this issue......I've spoken to about the "toppest" guy I can without going on to the the state level.....the executive manager of maintennance and grounds.....he guarantees the moldy ceiling tiles will be replaced INSTANTLY and the entire ceiling will be replaced in time. I asked him if this would resolve the entire issue and he says "I think so".......I can't imagine getting mold/mildew out of a building by just replacing ceiling tiles but ANYTHING is a start. My last conversation with him was a month ago.......and nothing has been done...... A month! Unbelievable. In my school district, they *shut down the high school for a month* recently, when mold was discovered in the ceiling. Completely closed the school, and brought in an outside company to do clean up. Yes, it was a *massive* logistics problem, wreaked havoc with the schedule and bus routes, cost a significant sum of money, etc - but our school board felt the health of the students was paramount. This is not in a wealthy school district, either. It is just inconceivable to me that there would still be moldy ceiling tiles after a month. Have you talked to the health department?

Mind you, this was a MONTH after we transferred in...second
quarter....the principal had already filed three work orders....

Anyway...an update to this story....on the last day of school before
Christmas I got to thinking....."The superintendent just stated on tv a
few weeks ago that he knew NOTHING about a problem of some kind at one
of the high schools until the students took it to the media"....so I
decided I was going to leave him a message that day and inform him that
I'm SURE he isn't aware of the issue but we have a mold/mildew issue
<he's a man -- gotta word it so they don't get defensive and can work on
FIXING the problem :) >...he guaranteed me he'd make a personal phone
call and put in a work order personally.

He called me back the same day and told me it was supposed to be
resolved over the Christmas holiday....

So we will see. This building also has pre-K kids and special ed kids
from 3 years old with alot of health problems! It seems I get good
responses when I contact people in authority.....they have a huge lack
of communication. If it IS fixed by next Monday I'll be more supportive
of our school system -- I've had a pretty bad opinion until now.

Parents can get way more done in a school system than anyone else....we
don't have to follow proper procedure and protocol....

amy

Jingle Bells

12-31-2003, 09:28 AM

Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message news:<3FF27CFC.28B66E4B@joimail.com>...

(snip)
Mind you, this was a MONTH after we transferred in...second quarter....the principal had already filed three work orders.... Anyway...an update to this story....on the last day of school before Christmas I got to thinking....."The superintendent just stated on tv a few weeks ago that he knew NOTHING about a problem of some kind at one of the high schools until the students took it to the media"....so I decided I was going to leave him a message that day and inform him that I'm SURE he isn't aware of the issue but we have a mold/mildew issue <he's a man -- gotta word it so they don't get defensive and can work on FIXING the problem :) >...he guaranteed me he'd make a personal phone call and put in a work order personally. He called me back the same day and told me it was supposed to be resolved over the Christmas holiday.... So we will see. This building also has pre-K kids and special ed kids from 3 years old with alot of health problems! It seems I get good responses when I contact people in authority.....they have a huge lack of communication. If it IS fixed by next Monday I'll be more supportive of our school system -- I've had a pretty bad opinion until now. Parents can get way more done in a school system than anyone else....we don't have to follow proper procedure and protocol.... amy

Replacing ceiling tiles will probably do nothing. The mold is most
likely a symptom of a moisture problem and will come back unless that
problem is fixed. Either water is getting in, or it is not getting out
(improper ventilation).

I happen to believe that the presence of mold often causes far more
alarm than warranted. There are mold spores floating around buildings
that don't have mold problems. Of course I have no idea how bad the
situation is in your kid's school. If it is a ventilation problem,
that may be more of a concern than the mold itself. School buildings
are supposed to have so many "air changes" per minute.

I work for an organization that, among other things, works with air
quality issues in buildings (including schools). It's not my area of
specialty, but I've been to some of the meetings ;-)

Amy D

12-31-2003, 01:48 PM

Jingle Bells wrote: Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message news:<3FF27CFC.28B66E4B@joimail.com>... (snip) Mind you, this was a MONTH after we transferred in...second quarter....the principal had already filed three work orders.... Anyway...an update to this story....on the last day of school before Christmas I got to thinking....."The superintendent just stated on tv a few weeks ago that he knew NOTHING about a problem of some kind at one of the high schools until the students took it to the media"....so I decided I was going to leave him a message that day and inform him that I'm SURE he isn't aware of the issue but we have a mold/mildew issue <he's a man -- gotta word it so they don't get defensive and can work on FIXING the problem :) >...he guaranteed me he'd make a personal phone call and put in a work order personally. He called me back the same day and told me it was supposed to be resolved over the Christmas holiday.... So we will see. This building also has pre-K kids and special ed kids from 3 years old with alot of health problems! It seems I get good responses when I contact people in authority.....they have a huge lack of communication. If it IS fixed by next Monday I'll be more supportive of our school system -- I've had a pretty bad opinion until now. Parents can get way more done in a school system than anyone else....we don't have to follow proper procedure and protocol.... amy Replacing ceiling tiles will probably do nothing. The mold is most likely a symptom of a moisture problem and will come back unless that problem is fixed. Either water is getting in, or it is not getting out (improper ventilation). I happen to believe that the presence of mold often causes far more alarm than warranted. There are mold spores floating around buildings that don't have mold problems. Of course I have no idea how bad the situation is in your kid's school. If it is a ventilation problem, that may be more of a concern than the mold itself. School buildings are supposed to have so many "air changes" per minute. I work for an organization that, among other things, works with air quality issues in buildings (including schools). It's not my area of specialty, but I've been to some of the meetings ;-)

Thanks. There are two stories about HOW it got moldy.....one is water
from a damaged roof.....the other story is the AC went out last summer
and the building "sweated" -- we are in southern Alabama. Apparantly
all the leaks are fixed.....I asked both the superintendent and the
manager of maintennance if they thought replacing ceiling tiles would
fix the problem....they said they "think so" so we'll see. His
kindergarten teacher was teaching in the other building a few years and
came back to teach kindergarten this year. She's had chest congestion
all year -- she calls it "sick building syndrome". I know my son had
some sinus problems when he first started. It was still in the warm
months of fall and at times the smell of mildew burned my nose. His
little friend has asthma....it makes me wonder how much is caused by
molds/mildew when she has bad weeks with her asthma.

amy

Jingle Bells

12-31-2003, 03:31 PM

jinglebells5555@yahoo.com (Jingle Bells) wrote in message news:<f804e152.0312310928.1b85d0e7@posting.google.com>... Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message news:<3FF27CFC.28B66E4B@joimail.com>... (snip) Mind you, this was a MONTH after we transferred in...second quarter....the principal had already filed three work orders.... Anyway...an update to this story....on the last day of school before Christmas I got to thinking....."The superintendent just stated on tv a few weeks ago that he knew NOTHING about a problem of some kind at one of the high schools until the students took it to the media"....so I decided I was going to leave him a message that day and inform him that I'm SURE he isn't aware of the issue but we have a mold/mildew issue <he's a man -- gotta word it so they don't get defensive and can work on FIXING the problem :) >...he guaranteed me he'd make a personal phone call and put in a work order personally. He called me back the same day and told me it was supposed to be resolved over the Christmas holiday.... So we will see. This building also has pre-K kids and special ed kids from 3 years old with alot of health problems! It seems I get good responses when I contact people in authority.....they have a huge lack of communication. If it IS fixed by next Monday I'll be more supportive of our school system -- I've had a pretty bad opinion until now. Parents can get way more done in a school system than anyone else....we don't have to follow proper procedure and protocol.... amy Replacing ceiling tiles will probably do nothing. The mold is most likely a symptom of a moisture problem and will come back unless that problem is fixed. Either water is getting in, or it is not getting out (improper ventilation). I happen to believe that the presence of mold often causes far more alarm than warranted. There are mold spores floating around buildings that don't have mold problems. Of course I have no idea how bad the situation is in your kid's school. If it is a ventilation problem, that may be more of a concern than the mold itself. School buildings are supposed to have so many "air changes" per minute.

Sorry, that should be air changes per hour (not minute) I work for an organization that, among other things, works with air quality issues in buildings (including schools). It's not my area of specialty, but I've been to some of the meetings ;-)