In the education policy world, much is being made of declining U.S. birthrates, and for good reason. Combined with the rapid expansion of school choice, the smaller number of children overall is forcing states and districts to confront difficult questions about funding, underutilized buildings, staffing, and long-term planning.
But this demographic change also raises a more personal question: What does a smaller generation mean for the children growing up in it? In a recent New York Times op-ed, Catholic University economist Catherine Ruth Pakaluk argues that this demographic shift constitutes a tragedy for children with few or no siblings. We mean “tragedy” literally: The author compares only childhood to being orphaned or widowed.
As only children ourselves, we are floored, and frankly, offended. Yes, siblings play a crucial role in many people’s lives. They can provide lifelong companionship, built-in support networks, shared experiences, and lessons on conflict, patience, and compromise. One of us sees this every day, as a parent of two. One of us remains close with her cousins, who are of course impossible without siblings in the family tree.
But growing up as an only child isn’t a deprivation. It does not deprive one of cognitive, social, or emotional development. And it’s certainly not comparable to the death of a parent, spouse, or sibling who actually existed; it’s a difference and a matter of tradeoffs.
It’s true that siblings shape kids in ways that parents don’t. But Pakaluk’s implication that “some of what shapes a child” must come from siblings is simply false. Are only children unshaped, incomplete human beings? Are we deficient in the virtues that Pakaluk argues are formed only in larger families?
To the contrary, we developed empathy and cooperation skills by navigating our neighborhoods, classrooms, and communities—just like children with one, two, or eight siblings. School itself offers regular opportunities to learn to communicate, take turns, collaborate, and resolve conflict. Learning to find common ground with peers shaped by different backgrounds and life experiences strikes us as even more valuable preparation for civic life than doing the same with someone who shares a near-identical upbringing. (And look at us now, as adult only children: We sought out the opportunity to co-author the very post you’re reading! We did learn to cooperate!)
Rather than treating smaller families as something to grieve, we should recognize that they are often a result of complex factors and contribute to different—but no less meaningful—ways of life.
Indeed, Pakaluk gives surprisingly little attention to the broader realities that shape family size in the first place. For many couples, having a small family is not a choice but the result of infertility or secondary infertility. For others, it reflects the professional costs of parenthood, especially for women. As Pakaluk mentions only briefly, mothers earn less than fathers over their careers, and many women experience extended periods out of the workforce after having children. Other financial realities, such as steep childcare costs or the absence of support networks, often make raising a small family the most responsible and sustainable choice. Pakaluk’s assertion that “more people are never a problem for a family” is simply not the case. To the contrary, far from tragedy, these families are often a reflection of parents doing the best they can with the resources they have.
Moreover, only childhood can confer a number of benefits. Without built-in playmates, we often learn to create our own worlds. Hours spent entertaining ourselves, inventing games, or getting lost in books cultivate creativity and curiosity. One of us traces a lifelong love of reading directly to those quiet afternoons spent happily alone—a passion that continues to shape both her personal and professional life. Learning to be comfortable with solitude fosters independence and may reduce problematic behavior in childhood and boost mental health in the long run. And rather than isolating us, having no buddies inside the house prompted us both to venture outside more frequently to explore and socialize with neighborhood friends.
Having just one or two siblings can offer these advantages to some extent, and what’s more, parents of fewer children can devote more resources to each. Time spent reading together, unhurried one-on-one conversations with adults, and opportunities to pursue enrichment activities like music and sports all contribute to children’s cognitive, social, and emotional development. Every additional child inevitably reduces the hours and dollars available to the others. Pakaluk essentially dismisses the importance of these practical realities, but it is hardly irrational for parents to weigh them against the value of giving a child more siblings.
And—though we didn’t live it ourselves—siblinghood has much to offer. Pakaluk shares a series of examples of older children whose well-being improved upon the arrival of younger siblings, and evidence indeed suggests that older siblings may promote positive child development among younger siblings. Some research indicates that younger siblings may reach certain language or developmental milestones more quickly by observing and imitating older brothers and sisters. One of us sees a version of this happen at home, as her firstborn delights in quizzing her younger brother on arithmetic problems. And of course, there are joys and memories that can’t be measured by research or grades in school.
But a larger family has its downsides, too. The evidence on behavioral impacts suggests both pros and cons. Having more siblings may correlate with greater risk of mental health concerns, and it may come with negative cognitive impacts on older children. We’re particularly troubled by Pakaluk’s enthusiasm for heavy reliance on older siblings for childcare, when the reality is that parentification can be a mixed bag.
Ultimately, Pakaluk’s argument rests on a troubling assumption: that as families become smaller, American students will experience growing social, emotional, and even moral challenges. But the benefits of siblings depend on context, and much like having few or no siblings, the tradeoffs inevitably vary.
Schools and communities will need to adapt to new demographic realities, but that does not mean smaller families are something to grieve. Still, if we want to make larger families a more feasible choice, we’ll need to reduce the barriers that have emerged in recent years—through policies such as more affordable childcare, more robust parental leave, and other measures that make raising a family more attainable.
