" This letterwriter is working with several mistaken assumptions.

1. He assumes that an "intact home" is synonymous with a good marriage. It's not necessarily so. An intact home might be filled with abuse and turmoil. And an intact home can be had without benefit of married partners.

2. He assumes that a shared last name means that partners are married. Some divorced women keep their husbands' last names for convenience.

3. He assumes that the absence of a shared last name means the absence of marriage. But it's increasingly common for women to keep their "maiden names" when they marry. "

" Even so, research has shown that teens from intact two-parent (mother/father) families have consistently higher reading and math scores than students with other living arrangements. Also, they are less likely to be suspended or expelled from school; less likely to commit delinquent crimes; less likely to be reported for problem behaviors at school; less likely to receive low grades in two or more subjects; and more likely to score well on standard tests of cognitive development.

"

" VTucker, research has also shown that high-minnded people who think their shxt doesn't stink are fools of the first order. "

" Hmmmm . . . did we strike a nerve there, Andres? "

" I have a lot of questions to ask regarding those studies -- who paid to have them done, what their methodology was, etc. People on either side of an issue can skew the results in their favor if they're trying to prove their own agenda. How were the participants in the study selected? Were other mitigating factors screened out of the studies? Etc.

Regarding V. Tucker's post, some interesting language lies therein regarding the schools: "Also, they are less likely to be suspended or expelled from school; . . .less likely to be reported for problem behaviors at school; less likely to receive low grades in two or more subjects." That word "reported" in particular jumps off the page -- just because 1 group's problems are REPORTED less frequently than another's doesn't mean that those problems OCCURRED less frequently. A couple of other observations: suspensions and expulsions are at the decretion of a school's administration and can be handed out quite subjectively. Who is more likely to be suspended, the child of a prominent businessman and a PTA volunteer, or the child of a single parent from the wrong side of the tracks? Politics can determine that; punishment isn't always meted out fairly. Also, teachers are human and can be biased -- I've seen with my own eyes the way some teachers single out or pick on the kids from the homes of the powerless and favor the children of the prominent citizenry of town. Even grades can be a subjective thing.

And how much of this is related to socio-economics and not family status? A child from a 2-income home often has advantages in terms of enrichment opportunities or even tutoring than a poorer child, and single-parent homes are more likely to be financially disadvantaged.

I've witnessed too many children living in single-parent homes who are excelling academically to give much credence to these studies. I think it would be too coincidental to say that the over-achieving children of single parents that I've observed are some kind of fluke or aberation. "

" Dear Robert,
I wish you could have seen inside the walls of my 'intact' home when I was growing up. From the outside all was great. It looked as if we were a happy 'same last name' family. I wish you could have heard the screaming and yelling and fighting and things flying across the living room, holes being kicked in the walls, the bruises on me because... well, because it was easier to hit than to hug.
My kids on the other hand have been raised by me, a single mother. The are polite, well mannered, and smart. They have been involved in sports and many other activities at school. They go on mission trips with the church every summer.
To make a long story short....please dont judge by what you think you see. "

" Yeah, Tucker, in fact 'we' did strike a nerve! Robert E. Clark's attempt to label students coming from what I'm sure he would call a 'broken home' is oversimplified, judgmental, pious, and just plain stupid. If having the same last name is the key to good scholarship, wouldn't all students who come from 'good homes' (as opposed to those horrid 'broken homes') attain the same level of high scholastic honors? Should we all change our last names to Clark and change our town's name to Sameville?

"

" Sounds like someone has a problem with the concept of the nuclear family in America today. It is still the norm, you know, or should be, if people would stay in commitments and stop thinking the grass is greener in the other pasture and just not living with morals. "

" Many "studies" have stated that it was the woman's liberation movement that started the high divorce rate. While, acutally that is in part true, does anyone wonder what women needed liberating from? Most of us women don't. "

" As a proud-single parent of an honor- student, I find it ironic that Mr. Clark believes only two-parent household's can produce good acedemic acheivement. My son has never failed to attain high honors in any grade or quarter, since I was awarded sole custody of him. Mr. Clark should understand that there are good homes, with 2 parents, whose children excel, there are good homes where children live with one parent, or grand-parents, etc. There are also bad homes with all the various make-up of families.

"

" Well, Becky, you could be right about the women's lib thing, but I think the failed ERA movement (if that's what you're referring to) and higher divorce rates were only coincidental. I prefer the theory that the high divorce rate in the USA was the fault of FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter and Clinton. LOL. "

" Remember the days when one income could support a family? That made married couples' lives easier, didn't it? And what happened to that?
Republican corporate greed happened to that, gang. So much for the "family values" lie the right wingers peddle. "

" It is truth that good marriages promote good children. You will always have some exceptions but all in all parents set the best examples for their children. "

" TQ, do you remember Rosie the Riveter? Wasnt Rosie the one who first had an affair with that big ol fat paycheck, and then didnt quite make it back home when the war ended? Do you remember who was president and who controlled Congress pre-war and during WWII and post-war until 1953? Except for the not-exactly-a-right-winger Ike, do you recall who still had the WH and Congress through the 50s and during most of the 60's? // Do you really want to go back to push mowers, one car garages and single paycheck families. And, by the way, family values doesnt have a thing to do with how many wage earners are in the family; but if you feel you have to blame something for your shortcomings, I guess thats as good an excuse as any. "

" fat kenny, you're right and you're wrong. your first sentence is wrong. i don't think good marriages promote good children. i do however think that parents set the best examples for their children therefore, good PARENTING promotes good children. "

" And do you remember, Tommy, when we had an American manufacturing industry with good union jobs, before the Republican scum shipped all those jobs overseas for cheap labor and obscene profits?
The results of 30 years of stagnant medium family incomes are record high debt ratios and record low rates of savings; fewer retirement and medical benefits and less parental quality time with their children. Hooray for the GOP. They've killed American manufacturing, and work with the Democrats to keep the illegal immigrants flooding in so they can bring wages here down to subsistence levels. That's your fascist Republican "family values" at work, Tommy boy.
But pay attention now. The American voting public is about tell you Republicans just how much they appreciate you. "

" Mr Question, where do you come up with these outlandish charges of who-dun-what? You people who play the 'label' game often make the silly mistake of applying the wrong label to the wrong subset. Your first flawed presumption is that Republicans are the affluent crowd and therefore own all business and commerce. In truth, it doesn't work that way. Democrats as a group are far wealthier than Republicans as a group and Democrats, as a group, are just as likely or perhaps even more likely to have significant business interests than Republicans are. I guess you could say that some unscrupulous 'wealthy Americans' favor illegal immigration and the low wages that brings them, but it makes no sense at all to cast that net over 'Republicans'. That argument, LOL, is full of holes and really makes you sound like you don't have a grasp of simple demographics. :) Try again, genius. "

" I think that is wonderful that so many families have stayed intact. "

"
"Do you really want to go back to push mowers, one car garages and single paycheck families." Yes, as well as an economy to support that lifestyle. "

" Gringa, you seem to have forgotten how Republican Saint Ronald Reagan rammed through the Immigration Reform and Control Act and signed it on Nov. 6, 1986, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants in the US. Reagan promised that if amnesty were granted, he would "crack down" on subsequent illegal immigration.
He lied.
That great Republican success has indeed changed the illegal immigrant situation in the US there were five million then, and there are at least 12 million now.
The corporate procurers who serve the GOP could have curbed illegal immigration long ago if they liked, by arresting the CEOs of the corporations that draw illegal immigrants to the US for jobs. But they're not about to arrest their masters, the corporate slave drivers who WANT this flood of subsistence-level labor, workers too frightened to talk back even if they are injured on the job.
Skeletor Chertoff stages a few pathetic show raids to round up a handful of illegal immigrants, and you're actually fooled. Amazing.
Try opening your eyes and seeing what the Republican Party really is for once. "

" TQ, why do you insist on blurring the distinction between the have/havenot classes by calling the haves Republicans and the havenots Democrats. They're not the same. It's not a 'lineal'. LOL You should have paid more attention when watching Seasame Street - "One of these ... is not like the other..." Didn't you comprehend the object of that early childhood lesson? "

" Tell me, Tommy boy, just how well has your shred-the-Constitution, spy-on-Americans Bush administration done at ending illegal immigration over the last seven years? American borders all secure now, are they? Or do the poor Republican dears need some more torture powers to get the job done? "