STUDENT DIFFERENCES IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT: A CLOSER LOOK AT
PARENTAL RULE SETTING AND FAMILY STRUCTURE
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Sociology
California State University Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Sociology
by
Tyler Michael Elston
FALL
2013
STUDENT DIFFERENCES IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT: A CLOSER LOOK AT
PARENTAL RULE SETTING AND FAMILTY STRUCTURE
A Thesis
by
Tyler Michael Elston
Approved by:
_______________________________ Committee Chair
Charles Varano
_______________________________ Second Reader
Jackie Carrigan
_____________________
Date
ii
Student: Tyler Michael Elston
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
___________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Amy Liu
Department of Sociology
iii
_____________________
Date
Abstract
of
STUDENT DIFFERENCES IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT: A CLOSER LOOK AT
PARENTAL RULE SETTING AND FAMILTY STRUCTURE
By
Tyler Michael Elston
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship the family has with a
child’s academic achievement. Inequality extant in school provides obstacles that cannot
be explained only by economic or class issues and requires a focus on inequality that
persists through cultural and parenting practices. Differences that arise in academic
achievement call into question the types of skills, values, and knowledge that are
validated in school. This exposes the structural disadvantage many children experience
when going to school. I find that family type and parental involvement via rule
structuring has significant effects on academic achievement. Although patterns do not
persist in all family types, communication and rule setting is significant to a child’s
academic success. Research shows that two parent families with extensive
communication and rule setting provide children with a stable platform for success. I
argue that the expectations and involvement parents provide have significant mediating
factors on a child’s academic success.
iv
Recommendations include a greater awareness made to parents of their
importance and the need for support of school in the home, as well as, the need to place a
greater value on working-class and minority culture.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Charles Varano
_______________________
Date
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ............................................................................ 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 7
Functional Paradigm ................................................................................... 7
Conflict Paradigm ..................................................................................... 11
James Coleman ......................................................................................... 14
Linguistics and Reproduction in the Family ............................................. 16
The Family and Parental Involvement ...................................................... 21
Parental Expectations ................................................................................ 26
Family Structure........................................................................................ 27
Summary ................................................................................................... 31
3. METHODS ................................................................................................................. 33
Data and Sample ....................................................................................... 33
Variables ................................................................................................... 33
Control Variables ...................................................................................... 36
Summary ................................................................................................... 37
4. FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 40
Descriptive Analyses ................................................................................ 41
Biological Mother and Father ................................................................... 42
Biological Mother-other-father ................................................................. 44
vi
Biological Father-other-mother ................................................................ 45
Biological Mother ..................................................................................... 45
Biological Father ....................................................................................... 46
Adoptive Parents ....................................................................................... 47
Guardians .................................................................................................. 47
Summary ................................................................................................... 47
5. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 49
Two Biological Parents Findings .............................................................. 50
One Biological-Other Parent Findings...................................................... 52
Single Biological Parent Findings ............................................................ 54
Appendix ..................................................................................................................... 58
References ................................................................................................................... 67
vii
1
Chapter 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The United States is a country viewed around the world for providing
opportunities to people regardless of their social background. Many people spend long
periods of their life in school because of how critical it is to success in the future. The
level of success that can be accomplished through education is a driving force in the lives
of most individuals. Long term success in terms of obtaining an education has generated
an insatiable demand for school (Anderson 1961). With the growth of educational
institutions nationwide the opportunity to attend school has increased. However,
widespread education has not equally advantaged all parts of the population (Bowles and
Gintis 1976; MacLeod 2009; Entwisle and Alexander 1996; Kozol 2005). There are
difficulties attending and being successful in school for groups historically disadvantaged
based upon existing social inequalities. Studies showing educational inequalities based
upon social origin are found in all Western countries, although the strength of this
association varies and has declined over time (Ballarino et al. 2009; Breen et al. 2009;
Esping-Anderson 2004; Goldthorpe 1996).
Although there are a number of options for success in the U.S., obtaining access
to education is highly reflective of an individual’s class and race (Gould 1996).
Inequalities that exist in the larger society have consequences for children across the
country and can be seen in longitudinal research where black-white test scores have
narrowed over the past 30 years, but at the current rate of change would take an
additional 50 years or more to close the gap (Orr 2003; Hedges and Nowell 1998). Class
2
is a major factor in discussing education because it limits access to various forms of
resources. An example of restricted access to resources can be seen in the amount of
wealth various ethnic groups possess. For example, Merida (1995) found middle-class
blacks have only 15 percent of the wealth held by middle-class whites which has
significant effects on social class (Orr 2003). Resources vary between tangible forms
such as financial support, school infrastructure and technology, and less tangible forms
such as norms, encouragement, and information gained from relationships and social
networks (Oseguera et al. 2011).
The relationship between family structure and academic achievement has
consequences for the racial gap, especially due to black students being nearly twice as
likely as white students to live in non-traditional households (Roscigno 1995, 1998).
Family background is important to educational opportunities because of its influence on
educational access to schools. Family type has implications for the type and quality of
schools a student attends (Bowles and Levin 1968; Coleman et al. 1996; Roscigno 1998),
the academic track a student is placed on (Dauber, Alexander, and Entwisle 1996;
Gamoron and Berends 1987; Oakes 1985), and the expectations a teacher places on a
student (Alexander et al. 1987; Rist 1970).
The finding that children of different racial groups and socioeconomic
backgrounds begin their formal educational careers with disparities in skills on
standardized tests (Lee and Burkham 2002) and that these inequalities persist through
primary and secondary school (Phillips, Crouse, and Ralph 1998) is well established
(Cheadle 2008). Although parenting practices play an important role in the development
3
of differences in early childhood achievement (Guo 1998; J. R. Smith, Brooksgun, and
Klebarov 1997), less is known about the role that families play in disparities in
achievement once children enter elementary school (Cheadle 2008). Reports find
disadvantaged children such as those whose parents are less educated, lower class, and/or
poor can potentially benefit more from pre-school attendance than their advantaged
counterparts (Manguson et al. 2004). On the other hand, arguments have been made that
differences in academic achievement vary due to IQ (Hernstein 1973; Jensen 1973) while
others repeatedly refute it (Bowles and Gintis 1976, 2000, 2002; Bowles et al. 2001).
Obviously, the family plays an integral role in a child’s educational development
as it provides experiences and socialization intended to prepare them to interact with
others and learn new things. Those with supportive families often have increased chances
for success and are situated to achieve goals out of reach for those whose parents are too
busy or unable to help. A parent’s inability to help their child with education varies
between difficulties such as long work hours, lack of educational resources, and low
levels of education. Obstacles to a cohesive relationship between school and the home lie
in a parent’s education, occupation, and ability to create an academic environment
reflective of school standards. It is because of the obstacles impeding education that my
research is focused on the family. It is important to look at and examine deeper the ways
parent’s direct effort varies based upon available resources and experiences. A concept
that will be examined in this study is concerted cultivation which is the conscious attempt
by parent(s) to customize their children’s lives to better prepare them for school through
4
activities and experiences (Lareau 1989). A central focus will involve the various levels
of concerted cultivation and the different outcomes it has on academic achievement.
The development of large school systems has not done away with inequality and
continues to be affected by social disparities which reduce access to educational
opportunities. This lack of equal access works against under-represented groups such as
women, non-whites, and the poor. Because there is a lack of representation and equal
access to opportunities for all groups it becomes important to understand the effect of
family. There is not a singular entity which prepares a child to be successful later in life,
but a multitude which a child relies upon to deal with and understand experiences over
time. For those able to communicate with others the transition into adulthood is less
difficult. This ability is critical as children get older and change teachers, schools, and
friends. The family is a place of practice for these skills where children learn the
necessary tools to be successful in school. Addressing the nation’s inequalities will
support educational institutions that are more equitable and receptive of diverse
backgrounds.
The current study looks at variance in academic achievement based upon parental
involvement via rule setting and family structure and asks the question: How does a
child’s level of parental involvement via rule setting and family structure affect their
academic achievement? Parental involvement’s main points include: setting rules related
to completing homework, watching television and obeying curfew; restricting privileges
for bad behavior, and interaction between parent and child about the school day and plans
for the future. For family structure there are various family types examined: single-parent
5
mother or father and two-parent family types, as well as guardian(s) and adoptive
parent(s).
The data set I will be using is the Kindergarten Class 1998-99 ECLS-K, a
longitudinal study collecting data in waves beginning with Kindergarten and returning
during the first, third, fifth, and finally the eighth grade year. I focus on the final wave
and will use it to test two hypotheses. The first hypothesis examines the effect family
type or types of parents in the home have on a child’s academic achievement. The second
hypothesis examines parental involvement through rule setting related to completing
homework, watching television and obeying curfew, restricting privileges for bad
behavior, and interaction between parent and child about their day at school and future
plans as contributing to a child’s academic success.
The sociological significance of this research lies in the area of improving
society’s understanding of inequality in children’s education. This study relies heavily
upon the previous work done by those asking a similar question about academic
achievement: why do some succeed while others do not? Education is viewed as the great
equalizer (Hurn 1993) specifically because it provides opportunities for success which
have direct implications for a happy life. The inequality that persists in America calls into
question the revolutionary impetus of schooling. My study focuses on the family and its
relation with school in working toward a child’s future. It is important to continue
challenging and questioning the status quo as patterns continue to disadvantage specific
groups such as African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latina(o)s. Questions still exist
about fixing the current system and working toward greater equality of opportunity and
6
conditions. This is the reason it is important to bring together the many works of authors
with multiple perspectives and different biases and interests. This creates the opportunity
to use their perspectives to better shape our understanding of children’s education and the
family.
The intention of this study is to add more peer-reviewed data into a field focusing
its attention on improving the lives of young people unable to enact the kinds of changes
necessary to improve their future. I look at research from several perspectives in order to
gain better understanding of how to improve the lives of children in school and make the
family a cohesive, helpful, and educationally significant space.
7
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
A large number of low-income children attend schools in the United States but do
not experience the same opportunities for success as do their high-income counterparts.
Part of the reduced success among minorities is related to the frequency of parental rule
setting and family type as well as material resources available in the home. School
provides opportunities for children to develop skills they are expected to have been
previously exposed to such as reading, working independently, and communicating with
adults. Inequality persists and differential academic achievement between whites and
minorities continue to disadvantage low-income students. Theoretical explanations of
inequality are constructed through frameworks that have overlooked the role family
plays. The functional framework begins the discussion of inequality and illustrates my
study’s focus on educational inequality reproduced through social structures.
Explanations for inequality in school can be developed through understanding the way
family intersects with schooling.
In the next section I consider how the functional paradigm questions the role
family plays in preparing children for school. The focus will be on how society and the
family are intended to work together for the betterment of the child while ignoring the
effects of cultural practices and structural inequality.
Functional Paradigm
The functional paradigm defines school as a social institution providing three
primary functions for society. First, school allows for efficient and rational sorting of
8
talented peoples for the most important status positions. Schools create a meritocratic
society valuing individual ability over family background. Second, schools teach
cognitive skills and norms that are necessary for success in an increasingly knowledgebased economy. Transmission of knowledge is the key to success in school where grades
and standardized tests are used to gauge academic achievement. The third and final
aspect views society as democratic and moving toward humane goals such as social
justice, a fulfilling life for all, and acceptance of diversity. This paradigm finds
educational sorting to be functional for society, but ignores the development and
continuance of inequality (Hurn 1993).
Functionalism addresses education and the family in an attempt to understand the
role each plays in constructing society. The role of family in socializing and educating
children has changed over time as industrialization drastically shifted the child away from
the home and into the school. This is not viewed in a negative light by structural
functionalists who understand that family has the new role of preparing children for the
experience they will encounter once they enter school. Due to this, failures within the
school are not attributed to poor teachers or administrators but rather a lack of preparation
by the parents.
Randall Collins engages the discussion of credentials and the workforce at the
point where schools transmit cognitive abilities and skills to individuals (Collins 1971;
Jensen 1973). Collins argues that a technical-functional perspective views the United
States as an ever-changing industrial society where formal education provides training for
highly skilled jobs and educational requirements constantly rise leading to large
9
proportions of the population spending longer periods in school. His analysis questions
the link between increased technological complexities on the job and accessibility to
those jobs which have high status and require educational degrees which work as cultural
currency. Employers value cultural currency for its supposed indication of a good worker
and the belief that those with more cultural currency will do a better job while also
increasing the job’s status. The value placed on cultural currency creates pressure to
obtain an education, and there has been an inflated worth attached to degrees pushing
levels of education up higher.
Collins argues that society is becoming largely dependent on credentialed
individuals who are over qualified for many jobs. Many people finishing secondary
school are able to directly enter the job market filling the open positions. Collins explains
how educational expansion has out-paced the number of highly skilled and professional
jobs, a conclusion which largely refutes the technical-functional theory. Jobs today are
not sufficiently more complicated or require significantly more technical skills. There is
little evidence that proves those with degrees are more productive than those who are
trained on the job. Collins finds schools are “ineffective in producing cognitive skills and
they have more to do with teaching conventional ideologies and traits which reproduce
the status quo” (Collins 1971:1014).
Largely missing from Collins’ analysis is the role of family in society. He
highlights the ways in which schools fail to transmit cognitive abilities and skills,
focusing instead on dominant traits and values, but neglects to include the moderating
effect of family. Meritocracy is a concept Collins refutes with evidence from the
10
workforce and higher-education institutions but he misses where family comes in. Family
plays the primary role of socializing and is the first group the child experiences crucial
life events with. One of the crucial factors in obtaining employment to Collins is getting
trained on the job. The ability to interact with new people and take orders is a technique
developed over the course of the early years.
Another aspect of functionalist models of education is Becker’s (1964) notion of
human capital. Human capital theory views education as an investment in an individual
that increases their knowledge or expertise in the form of experiences, language, and
readiness which yield higher earnings in the future (Dore 1976). This perspective views
the costs of investment as educational expenses but also the income that is forgone to be
able to attend school. The value attached to human capital is that investment into
education increases overall production and economic growth (Hurn 1993). While this
investment is developed in the school it is initially established by the family.
As can be seen so far from structural functionalist theories, structure is largely
accepted as permanent and the family is viewed as having a small role to play. There are
some difficulties with Becker’s human capital theory specifically in terms of evaluating
the role of the family. The role of the family is largely unaccounted for because Becker’s
focus is on future success rather than questioning the ways human capital is developed in
the family. In a later section on James Coleman the role the family plays in creating
human capital will be more fully developed.
Finally, status attainment theory explains student differences in school
achievement using social backgrounds and the length of time students remain in school
11
and college. Status attainment research finds significant differences in eventual
educational attainment based upon different social backgrounds with those students
having higher-status being more likely to enter college. There are two findings from
status attainment research in relation to educational outcomes based upon social
background that are significant. First, a child’s ability and competence in school
generates success that is informed by social capital rather than race. Second, students
from high-status families frequently have higher aspirations for educational achievement.
The opposite can be said for low-status students who tend to have lower aspirations. In a
move toward more acknowledgement of the role family plays, status attainment theory
only hints at the need for family to have social capital and encourage children’s
aspirations. Social capital, when applied successfully, develops social relations which aid
parent’s encouragement of children and works to inform them of other children’s
development. This gives the parent a better understanding of student progress and a sense
of when help is needed and if any further educational decisions need to be made.
Conflict Paradigm
Conflict theorists find little evidence to support the meritocratic framework put
forth by functional theorists. Instead they argue it is the class-related values and attitudes
that schools transmit to their students leaving social, human, and cultural capital to be
developed by the parents in home. To better understand the problems experienced at
school, conflict theorists assert that schools appeal to the demands of elites through the
transmission of docility and compliance instead of cognitive skills (Bowles and Gintis
1976). In what follows, various conflict theorists will highlight the inaccuracies with the
12
functional paradigm and assert new ways for considering educational inequality and
social reproduction.
Beginning with the notion of meritocracy, Bowles and Gintis (1976) illustrate the
ways that schooling is not based upon personal skills, but tracking of individuals into the
necessary social location for capitalist economies. Bowles and Gintis stated that changes
in the structure of education are associated historically with changes in the social
organization of economic production. These changes have seen socialization by the
family reduced with an increased reliance on school to prepare children for the
workforce. They argue that there is a correspondence between the social relations of
education and the social relations of production. The education system mimicked the
relationship between the work process and product that children will later encounter in
the workplace.
Moreover, the forms of consciousness encouraged and rewarded in the education
system are those that would best prepare children to accept the situation they are
subsequently subjected to work in. Through their historical account of the education
system Bowles and Gintis show how children of different social classes are prepared for
their respective places in the production process. This preparation for the types of
activities experienced at work is not available in the home, and when considering the
correspondence theory school has become the only institution which can prepare a child
for future employment.
Moving into the home, the focus of Pierre Bourdieu’s (1977) work on social
inequality informed Jay MacLeod’s (2009) study which sought to explain the failings of
13
low-income children in school due to difficulties faced in the family. MacLeod used his
knowledge of intersections between the family and school to develop a deeper
understanding of the ways early-life influences and experiences shape people’s life
aspirations and opportunities. Difficulties encountered by youth in MacLeod’s work
center on habitus and its reproduction of the status quo. The concept of habitus was
developed by Pierre Bourdieu and refers to the particular environment which produces a
system of expectations and dispositions in an individual. This is influenced by the
family’s structure and the effects familial interactions have on individuals. Perceptions,
tastes, behavior, etc. are closely linked to the experience and interactions occurring in the
home. Because the theory closely examines the home environment, Bourdieu’s theory
allows for a better understanding of the role of family and its effect on academic
achievement.
Whereas Bowles and Gintis used over-deterministic theories to explain the
capitalistic effect on the school system through tracking, Jay MacLeod’s (2009) book
Ain’t No Makin’ It uses habitus to establish the family as a factor in the difficulties
related to academic achievement. MacLeod went into the homes of two groups of boys
documenting their everyday actions and behaviors trying to understand the effects of their
family life on their education. The Hangers are exposed to familial disappointments in the
form of occupational and educational failures which negatively affect their aspirations.
The Brothers on the other hand experienced support from their parents and were actively
motivated through parental expectations, yet they too struggled in school given their
devalued cultural capital.
14
The Hangers aspirations were frequently “leveled” by others’ failures, including
the family, and directly affected the motivation of the youth in the classroom. In effect,
their habitus dictated their educational opportunities through learned patterns and
experiences in the family. Because the family has this effect we see different perspectives
and motivations between the Brothers and Hangers. MacLeod finds failures in the home,
and difficulties in school, make for high drop-out rates and low levels of efficacy. He
displays the ways rejection at school is weakly correlated to the curriculum and highly
correlative with the home environment and experiences with failure and success in the
family. MacLeod demonstrated the way in which the place one lives and their
experiences have a direct impact on future aspirations.
James Coleman
James Coleman (1988) argues that social capital is necessary for success in school
and the work place. Social capital is a social resource that garners support and success
through awareness of processes going on at school such as getting help on a difficult
subject, knowing when and how to apply to colleges, or getting information on where to
find a job after school. Coleman produced a study designed to assess high dropout rates
utilizing the concept of social capital. He details three forms of social capital: obligations
and expectations, information channels, and social norms. Sanctions and closure work as
behavior modifiers by society to reproduce the status quo. Obligations and expectations
are a form of social capital which depends upon two factors: “trustworthiness of the
social environment (meaning obligations will be repaid) and the actual extent of
15
obligations held” (Coleman 1988: S102). Information channels are the pathways in which
individuals exert agency in affecting their social location.
Coleman illustrated this relationship in a general sense:
A does something for B and trusts B to reciprocate in the future, this establishes an
expectation in A and an obligation on the part of B. This obligation can be
conceived as a credit slip held by A for performance by B. If A holds a large
number of these credit slips, for a number of persons with whom A has relations,
then the analogy to financial capital is direct. These credit slips constitute a large
body of credit that A can call in if necessary-unless, of course, the placement of
trust has been unwise, and these are bad debts that will not be repaid. (Coleman
1988:S102)
These three forms of social capital empower individuals to be successful in school
due to increased opportunities to acquire resources. Crucial to these types of social capital
is their transmutable form, and more specifically their usefulness to multiple other social
and economic situations. Social capital permits “taking resources and combining them
with other resources such as income, education, or occupation to produce different
system-level behavior or, in other cases, different outcomes for individuals” (Coleman
1988:S101). Coleman found that no matter the source, “individuals in social structures
with high levels of obligations outstanding at any time have more social capital on which
they can draw” (Coleman 1988:S103).
Information channels are important to social capital because of the potential for
information that is part of social relations. Acquiring information costs something, be it
time or services. Maintaining relationships for other purposes may also serve as a tool for
acquiring information. Coleman noted the importance and transmutable form of social
capital with intergenerational closure or the relationship between parent and child A with
parent and child B. Communication and interaction in relation to their children would
16
permit an opportunity for the parents A and B to discuss other topics and potentially
inform one another about areas unrelated to children’s education. Two parents who
interact on the basis that their children know each other are able to discuss types of
acceptable activities, establish standards, and discuss sanctions for their children. Each
parent reinforces the other in sanctioning her child’s actions and furthermore each parent
constitutes a monitor for both children. The existence of “intergenerational closure
provides a quantity of social capital available to each parent in raising their children, not
only in matters related to school but in other matters as well” (S107).
The role family plays in advantaging children in school rests on levels of social
capital held by the parents. As Coleman indicated social, human, and cultural capital are
significantly related to success in school because information channels, skills, and
experiences prepare children for various situations they will face. Different forms of
capital can garner more resources, generate help from others, and develop knowledge that
will advantage children in school. The development of these forms of capital are
significantly related to the ability of children to adapt to and succeed in school.
Linguistics and Reproduction in the Family
Because the family affects children’s lived experiences, those from the lower and
upper class begin to exhibit distinct speech codes and cognitive functioning based upon
the common-sense understandings they hold founded in linguistics.
Basil Bernstein (1977) looks at social reproduction through sociolinguistic codes
which “point to the social structuring of meanings and to their diverse but related
contextual linguistic realizations” (Bernstein 1977:474). He attempts to investigate how
17
symbolic systems are realizations and regulators of the structure of social relationships.
There are certain contextual constraints upon speech due to a child's exposure to different
types of socialization which transform the biological into a specific cultural being. This
process of socialization which depends on speech, activates a specific cognitive and
affective awareness in the child and assigns a specific form and content (Bernstein 1977).
This develops in the child a common-sense understanding that things are
inevitable and limits other options or choices. The family is the most fundamental agent
of socialization and “it is through the interaction of the family, school, and work that the
orderings of society are made manifest” (Bernstein 1977:477). With this in mind
Bernstein asks the question: what sociological factors affect linguistic performances
within the family that are critical to the process of socialization and educational success?
Social class is a significant mediator of linguistic patterns and from its influence on the
family, work, and school it penetrates the structure of life experiences within the family.
The family reinforces and practices linguistic patterns which children utilize in
school. If the family practices linguistic patterns significantly different from those in
school problems will arise due to different ways of understanding. There are two types of
meanings which speech codes are based on: universalistic and particularistic.
Universalistic meanings are those in which principles and operations are made
linguistically explicit. Particularistic orders of meaning are meanings in which principles
and operations are relatively linguistically implicit. When orders of meaning are
universalistic, then the meanings are less tied to a given context giving individuals access
to change their experiences. For particularistic meanings a higher level of context-bound
18
meaning is tied into local relationships and to a local social structure. This renders
meaning as dependent upon context and it may be restricted to those who share a similar
contextual history. The argument holds that forms of socialization orient the child
towards speech codes which control access to meanings. Therefore “elaborated codes
orient their users towards universalistic meanings, whereas restricted codes orient,
sensitize, their users to particularistic meanings” (Bernstein 1977:477).
Hess et al. (1965) use Bernstein's (1973) description of two types of speech codes:
restricted and elaborate. By its nature, restricted speech codes require limited speech for
a child to understand the ideas being put forth relying more on context. Elaborate speech
codes require extra cognitive work to figure out what a parent says to a child because the
parent uses concepts to clearly explain a situation and does not rely solely on context.
The limited experience for children in families reproducing restricted speech codes
impedes the development of different linguistic styles and limits their linguistic abilities.
During their research Hess et al. (1965) conducted a study testing the motherchild interaction. The objective of this study was to discover how teaching styles of the
mothers induce and shape learning styles and information processing strategies in the
children. They examined linguistic patterns to assess the cognitive processes going on
and the way in which a task could be more or less difficult based on the speech code
utilized. They found that elaborate speech codes, or explanatory and helpful verbal and
non-verbal gestures, aided the child in finishing the task. When the task was administered
to subjects using restricted speech codes the mother and child struggled to finish the task.
The significant variance between classes was the parents’ use of planning and the verbal
19
and cognitive environments which they presented (Hess et al. 1965). Mothers utilizing a
restricted code socialized their children into passive learners while mothers implementing
an elaborate speech code socialized their children into active learners making tasks like
the one in the study or in school achievable.
The family is the place where children practice their speech codes and develop an
understanding of object and person relationships. This is significant because later when
they are in school and attempting to communicate with teachers their understanding of
object and person relationships will affect how well they can re-tell a story, explain a
problem they have, or seek help when it is needed. Cognitive functioning is reliant upon
linguistic patterns and establishes thought patterns which can inhibit communication
(Hess et al. 1965). It is in the family that children develop a set of inter-related contexts
which have implications to the orderings of a culture or subculture made through
substantive forms of its linguistic realizations. To better situate the application of
socialization through speech codes it is important to look at the family communication
structures and the ways they can be cognitively limiting (Hess et al. 1965). The
linguistic understandings children hold are based on their interactions within the family
and it is there that they establish the patterns used in understanding and communicating
language.
In response to the degradation of education during the 20th century the federal
government created the Office of Economic Opportunity to institute laws to help the
disadvantaged. They used this approach because quality education and reaching children
when they are young are crucial to achieving equitable academic success. Historically a
20
lack of motivation in the family has been linked to cultural deprivation and the poor
performance of children with this behavior leading to social, educational, and economic
poverty. This is especially evident in the family where “cultural deprivation's effects are
centered on a lack of cognitive meaning in the mother-child communication system”
(Hess et al. 1965:221). Crucial to the mother-child communication system is the family
structure which inhibits or enables different language patterns shaping thought and
cognitive styles of problem solving.
With this foundation of speech codes established, another study which illustrates
difficulties for students in school based on linguistic patterns learned from the family is
Shirley Brice Heath's conducted in 1983. Heath engages a problem extant in most
classrooms in America: teachers and students coming from different cultural backgrounds
struggling to communicate. She focuses on why some children did not or could not
respond as did other children by analyzing the role of questioning in language and
socialization in the family.
In the classroom students from Trackton, a lower income neighborhood, would
not engage with teachers through questions and responses. To better understand this
problem, Heath interacted with Trackton families to investigate the different assumptions
and norms of linguistic patterns impeding the student/teacher interaction. The significant
difference between teachers and Trackton students was that in the family children were
not viewed as conversational partners until they were seen as realistic sources of
information and competent partners in talk (Heath 1983).
21
Because the students from Trackton were inexperienced with the teacher’s
linguistic patterns, “school questions were unfamiliar in their frequency, purposes and
types, and in the domains of content knowledge and skills display they assumed on the
part of students” (Heath 1983:123). It is clear that the problems faced by the Trackton
students came from restricted speech codes being reproduced by the family and the
teacher’s inability to successfully communicate with students.
The Family and Parental Involvement
Research in the area of academic achievement has outlined the ways structure
reinforces inequality (Collins 1971) and the types of capital necessary to be successful in
school (Coleman 1988). The following section will illustrate the way parental
involvement through rule setting and family structure has direct implications for a child’s
academic achievement.
There are many ways to define parental involvement in a child’s education.
Parental home-based involvement has been studied by Annette Lareau (1989) through
observing parent-child interactions and contact with the child’s school. What is important
to parental involvement is the transmission of specific knowledge and skills in
developing a child’s cultural capital. When applied with social capital, cultural capital
makes parental involvement a positive academic experience overall. There is extensive
literature detailing the ways in which a child’s academic achievement is positively
correlated with increased parental involvement when controlling for income and social
background and I highlight some of the central research below.
22
Social ties and parental networks are extensively detailed by Lareau in her
ethnography of primary school children of working-class and middle-class backgrounds.
Lareau interviews and observes parents, teachers, and administrators to understand
differences in academic achievement. She focuses on parental involvement and family
structure, but she also investigates the relationship with teachers. Her use of the concept
cultural capital is grounded in social capital, obligations and expectations, information
channels and social norms, a concept used by Coleman (1988) and created by Bourdieu
(1977). Cultural capital is defined by Lareau as cultural resources which influence social
selection. This holds that possessing key cultural resources provides social advantages
which are important to academic success (Lareau 1989).
Lareau uses this term to discuss the differences within families and the
consequences of certain parenting practices. Middle-class children are advantaged when
their parents reproduce cultural capital because it is valued in school. Working-class
children without these resources face difficulties adapting to new experiences where their
culture is not present. Although cultural capital is important it alone does not advantage
children. The resources must be activated and simply possessing them does not advantage
children. This is part of the reason cultural capital when activated is often accompanied
by social and human capital, all three working to help children succeed. This advantage
generates gaps in achievement with many working-class children struggling in school
because their knowledge and experiences are limited.
The level of involvement the family has in a child’s education frequently
determines the level of success and expectations they experience. Middle-class parents
23
develop a “two person single career” where they would “intervene in the child’s school
experience and compensating at home for omissions in the school’s program” (Lareau
1989:82). Teachers found the parents of middle-class children to be open to customizing
their child’s school life. She found considerably different patterns with working classclass parents who turned over responsibility for education to the school deferring to the
notion of professional expertise. This lack of parental involvement and customization of a
child’s daily life carried into the family leaving the child unprepared and lacking practice
in school valued skills, knowledge, and experience. Because of the working-class parents
reduced level of involvement their children experienced “single educational careers”
where their success was based upon their individual ability, diligence, and overall
performance in the classroom (Lareau 1989).
Lareau’s findings point to the significance of the family and the role parental
involvement has on academic success. When the family defers all responsibility to
teachers and there are no school expectations reinforced in the home through an
educational atmosphere children struggle academically. Removing the family from a
child’s academic path leaves them uninformed and disadvantaged significantly in relation
to the families promoting a two-person single career. She emphasized the importance of
customizing a child’s education so as to help them in the ways they need to achieve the
highest level of academic success.
Lareau conducted a similar ethnography in 2003 that analyzed the role of the
family in a child’s academic success, with a focus on the influences of different parenting
practices. She wanted to more fully understand the cultural practices within the family
24
and the intersections with school. Investigating the relationships in the family Lareau
determined there were two forms of parenting at play in the home: concerted cultivation
and the accomplishment of natural growth. Concerted cultivation is the direct attempt by
parent(s) to create a customized daily life for their child. The intention is to provide
opportunities to gain experience interacting with other children as well as adults
generating various forms of capital. The accomplishment of natural growth focuses on
feeding, clothing, and housing the child and allowing more autonomy with less direct
attempt to keep them busy with activities. Both parenting practices attempt to support the
child and create discipline, but only concerted cultivation reinforces in the child the
standards expected in school, such as rules for homework, limiting how late watch
television, or setting curfews.
Concerted cultivation is an important socializing factor due to its development of
greater verbal ability, comfort with authority figures, and familiarity with abstract
concepts and discipline, all of which are traits important to academic achievement
(Lareau 2003). When a family is more concerned with providing the basics for their child
the obstacles limiting their ability to provide support and be involved in the child’s
education become apparent. Families practicing the accomplishment of natural growth
are not able to provide a discipline in terms of education because there is often a
deprivation of resources and fluctuations in family structure.
Past research documenting the significance rule setting for homework, television,
and eating meals together has on academic achievement may explain some of the
difficulties faced by children living in homes where accomplishment of natural growth
25
exists. It has negative effects on their schooling because children need guidance and
assistance from adults, but many parents lack significant experience with education
making involvement more difficult to enact. The significant difference between the types
of discipline socialized into children is that families practicing concerted cultivation are
developing in their child a sense of self-actualization while the accomplishment of natural
growth promotes deference to authority (Hess et al. 1965). It is the role of the family to
support and aid the child, but also to recognize when outside help is needed. This is
where social, human, and cultural capital becomes significantly related to academic
achievement due to the times when families need support (Lareau 2003). The awareness
and ability of the family to act are significantly related to success in school because it is
the successful activation of resources that promotes academic achievement.
Other researchers have re-tested the quantitative aspect of Lareau’s work and they
support her theory that concerted cultivation has multiple dimensions of parenting
practices which support my argument that concerted cultivation has various forms
(Cheadle and Amato 2010). When there are fewer parents in the home there is a reduced
rate of concerted cultivation as is the case with step-parents and a high number of siblings
or children in the home. Consistent with Lareau’s work is the need for parents to possess
and develop social capital that enhances academic achievement.
McNeal Jr. (1999) similarly identified the advantage parents experience when
they communicate and interact with parents of other children gaining them access to
information about their child’s school. This also creates potential for help if needed in the
future as Coleman established in his development of obligations and expectations.
26
McNeal Jr. details three aspects of parental involvement that build one’s social capital:
having dyadic relationships with other parents, positive relationship between parent and
child, and income. The support from these resources allows for positive parental
involvement in the child’s education improving academic achievement.
McNeal Jr. found higher levels of academic success among children with higher
levels of SES regardless of parental involvement. Causes for this may lie in types of
after-school childcare they are provided with or the level of familial changes in the home.
Reduced parental involvement can be moderated by aunts, uncles, or cousins who
frequently interact with and or read to children. This moderating effect can advantage
working-class children and improve their chances for high academic achievement. The
role family plays in providing interactions, teaching opportunities, and educational
experiences have a significant effect on academic achievement.
Parental Expectations
Parental expectations can be positive for a child and the arenas in which children
operate to feel safe are crucial to academic success. One of the main ways to create such
an environment is through eating meals together as a family and talking about school and
future aspirations. The regularity of shared meals creates a routine allowing parents to
accurately “impart important values to children” (Roche and Ghazarian 2011: 875). This
process plays a part in developing the competence of youth, and parents report decreased
levels of externalizing negative behavior. It is important to note that transition and change
in a child’s life can have negative effects on their schooling. Roche and Ghazarian
develop their idea of arenas of comfort; situated relationships that help protect or ease the
27
struggle of a youth in other arenas of their life such as school. The family provides
opportunities for eating meals together which is a predictable beginning and end to the
day and no matter the interactions beyond those meals, a child can count on their
parent(s) to sit down with them and give them attention.
When controlling for SES or parent occupation there is a reduced rate of eating
meals together amongst students who regularly underperform. Part of the difficulty in
eating meals together lies in the time available for the parent(s) to both prepare and be
available to eat with youth, and increased nonstandard work schedules impede this
process (Han and Fox 2011). The family suffers due to difficult work hours and the
amount of interacting with the child is directly affected. Nonstandard work hours when
combined with stress at work create a problematic environment for communication where
children are aware of difficulties in the family based upon parent-child interactions. The
Ecological System perspective improves our understanding of difficulties experienced by
children through focusing on stress which impacts a child’s surrounding environment and
affect their well-being (Bronfenbrenner and Morris 1998). In a supportive home
environment parental expectations of homework and eating meals together frequently
create an environment similar to the arena of comfort explained by Roche and Ghazarian
(2011).
Family Structure
There are a number of defining events that take place in the home on a regular
basis which aid in a child’s academic success. Eating meals together, talking about the
future and their day at school are just a few examples of the ways in which parents are
28
able to create a living situation which stimulates growth and learning. The basic
components of family structure involve the types of parents in the home the child
interacts with on a day-to-day basis. For the child to receive attention and be successful in
school there needs to be consistency and high levels of interaction. When mothers and
fathers constantly move in and out of the home, complications arise in relation to math
and reading, as well as overall academic achievement. Fluctuations in parent numbers
and or living situations cause disturbances in a child’s education.
Single-parent families frequently involve mothers as head of household but Lee,
Kushner, and Cho (2007) studied the effects of single-parent households on male and
female children when headed by either mother or father. Social learning theory posits
gendered behavior transmits from parent to child through same-gender parents (Rossi
1984). Although other research has led to various conclusions on academic performance
in same-gender households, Lee, Kushner, and Cho (2007) found no significant
difference between academic achievements in mixed-gender single-parent households.
Lee and Kushner (2008) followed up on their research and confirmed their
previous findings that gender does not matter for child or parent; rather the key to
academic success is involvement. A difficulty to same-gender households is the friend
relationship that potentially develops. The authority held by the parent is reduced through
over identification with same gender parent or a lack of engagement with cross-gender
parent (Lee, Kishner, and Cho 2007: 155). Further research would need to investigate the
positives of the friend relationship, but under these circumstances the parent-child
29
relationship is fundamentally more important to academic success because of the need to
enact expectations and restrictions when necessary to spur development.
Entwisle and Alexander (1996) found reason to suggest family structure is
relevant to academic achievement as long as the child has an adult available to regulate
television and check completion of homework. When a parent and their child interact
together the parent is practicing concerted cultivation which transmits cultural capital and
prepares the child for school. Difficulties arise in homes where long work hours interrupt
the interactions in the family. The family is unable to provide youth with the important
skills and cultural capital necessary for participation in school. Two-parent homes are not
required to achieve success if there is adequate time spent teaching and interacting with
the child whether it is with the mother, father, or a relative. Part of the reason Entwisle
and Alexander found African American children in single-mother families performing
better in reading than their counterparts in mother only or mother-father families is
related to other adult family members around the home who read to and interact with
them. Entwisle and Alexander highlight the importance of adult-child interactions and the
elevated importance of parental involvement over socioeconomic status.
In families with parents at home but low levels of involvement and support,
children underachieve similarly to single-parent families starved of resources. Singleparent families possess fewer educational materials at home and cannot afford activities
that stimulate children cognitively like museums and plays. Musick and Meier (2009)
find the leading reasons for children’s academic success are resources and parental
expectations. Musick and Meier find single-mothers expect less of their children on their
30
first marks in math than two-parent families where involvement is increased due to an
additional parent in the home. Expectations by parents motivate children and qualify as
involvement in a child’s education. Pong, Dronkers, and Hampden-Thompson (2003)
questioned the importance of family structure in relation to social safety nets, and suspect
family structure is relevant with respect to the types of socialization the child
experiences.
As noted above, access to adults is crucial to children in single-parent families
where a mother’s or father’s time with their children is often constricted by work.
Entwisle and Alexander (1996) looked at the lack of access to human capital due to
restricted time spent interacting with mothers and found it to negatively affect a child’s
academic achievement. Children in families with mothers who have never been married
are more at risk of suffering academically than those in divorced families. Research in the
area of father-headed households experiencing similar circumstances would develop the
concept further.
Entiwisle and Alexander (1995) found summer to be a major deficit in
educational growth for students not attending summer school, but they found families
with higher SES were able to compensate for the lack of cognitive stimulation from
school through engaging with their child academically and creating an academic
environment such as required reading, camps, and other activities generating cognitive
stimulation. When educational levels of parents are equitable between working and
middle-class parents, differences between children’s cognitive development and
achievement disappear leading to speculation that a child’s socialization is determined by
31
the characteristics or social, human, and cultural capital of the parent(s) attained in part
through schooling (Ricciuti 2004). Additional research on childcare providers as
developers of a child’s human capital and cultural capital would inform this research.
Summary
The literature on children’s education illustrates the ways parental involvement is
fundamental to the educational process. Both the functional and conflict paradigms are
weak in their understanding of the intersections between school and the family. Research,
such as this one, will help expand our understanding of the causal factors leading to
disparate levels of academic achievement. Structural influences on academic achievement
are illuminated by the works of Randall Collins (1971) and Samuel Bowles and Herbert
Gintis (1976), but the family is conceptually absent as in many works reviewing
structure. Jay MacLeod (2009) sought to conceptualize the family and structure together,
and he revealed new findings connecting a positive family life with increased
opportunities for success in school.
With the development of social and cultural capital (Coleman 1988; Lareau 1989,
2003; Bourdieu 1977) parental involvement has become more important in the
educational process throughout primary and secondary school. When parents practice
concerted cultivation and attempt to customize their child’s education, opportunities for
academic success are significantly improved. These are the types of parenting practices
that would work towards validating my hypotheses. Differences between working-class
and middle-class families have been attributed to cultural differences, economic
disparities, and overall perception of the importance their culture places upon education.
32
The literature has developed the idea that two parent families are not the only way
for a child to be academically successful, but that a child needs adult interaction and
expectations that both support and inspire them to achieve success. This support can
come from adults other than a child’s mother or father. The ways that rule setting and
parental involvement improves academic success gives support to the hypotheses that
children in two parent families will do better academically than their single-parent
counterparts that do not have extended kin or other adults in the home to interact with.
Based on the literature no single variable is the source of success or failure, but the
intersections of many variables lead to educational achievement.
From the research addressed above, I have developed two hypotheses:
1. Two parent families lead to increased academic achievement for their
children.
2. Parental involvement through communicating and rule setting produces
increased academic achievement for their children.
33
Chapter 3
METHODS
Data and Sample
The data used in my analysis comes from the Educational Childhood Longitudinal
Study-Kindergarten cohort (NCES 2005). This subset includes 8,809 parent respondents
with children aged 13-14. There are 10,446 female and 10,950 male children covered in
this data set and the racial distribution is 1,149 Asian, 2,937 Black or African American,
3,559 Hispanic, 11,308 White, and 1,077 Other which covers American Indian, Native
Hawaiian, and more than one race. The researchers who conducted the ECLS-K 1998-99
administered an initial wave of interviews with the parent and proceeded to return every
other year to acquire updated information. General demographic characteristics were
compiled through school documents on file and composite measures taken by the
researchers themselves. The interviews were in the home and involved whatever type of
parent(s) (biological, step, adoptive, guardian) that was available, but if there was
difficulty in recording both parent’s responses due to unavailability the researcher
returned at a future time.
The initial intent of the study was to get detailed longitudinal information on
children to assess differences in academic achievement, and it is because of this initial
intent that the current study is using the ECLS-K 1998-99.
Variables
The dependent variable in the analyses is P7SCHGRD, or grades children
received in school, measured by parent’s responses to the question “now I would like to
34
ask you about {child}'s grades during this school year. Overall, across all subjects
(he/she) takes at school does (he/she) get,” and the parent had the option of mostly a’s,
mostly b’s, mostly c’s, mostly d’s, mostly f’s, child’s school does not give grades,
refused, don’t know, and not ascertained (NCES 2005). The question was asked at the
end of the school year of each parent. The variable was recoded into GradesAtSchool and
“child’s school does not give grades” was moved to missing along with refused, don’t
know, and not ascertained. To ease the analysis process an automatic recode was done to
flip the answers making one equal to “mostly f’s” and five “mostly a’s.”
The independent variables used in this study focus on family structure, parental
involvement and rule setting. My hypotheses are developed through seven multiple
regression models using family type as an independent variable as well as incorporating
other variables to focus on parental involvement.
Family type: P7HPARNT- types of parents in household has nine categories,
biological mother and biological father, biological mother and other-father (step,
adoptive, foster), biological father and other-mother (step, adoptive, foster), biological
mother only, biological father only, two adoptive parents, single adoptive parent or
adoptive parent and stepparent, related guardian(s), and unrelated guardian(s). The
related guardian(s) category pertains to immediate family excluding the mother and
father while unrelated guardian(s) is any adult that is not an adoptive parent or a blood
related guardian(s). This variable was recoded into “types of parents” with biological
mother and biological father assigned position 1, biological mother and Other-father
(step, adoptive, foster) assigned position 2, biological father and other-mother (step,
35
adoptive, foster) assigned position 3, biological mother only assigned position 4,
biological father only assigned position 5, two adoptive parents and single adoptive
parent or adoptive parent and stepparent assigned position 6, and related guardian (s) and
unrelated guardian(s) assigned position 7 (NCES 2005).
Parental Involvement has four independent variables: family rules for homework,
communication, curfew, and strict rules. The first independent variable, P7HWKRUL
was recoded into P7HWKRUL2, and asks the question: “Are there family rules for
{child} about any of the following…doing homework?” The parent(s) had the option of
yes, no, na, refused, don’t know, and not ascertained..
The second independent variable, communication, is a computed variable
combining P7OFTTLK, which asks the question: “now I would like to ask you about
some things you might talk with {child} about. In the past month, how often have you
talked with {child} about {his/her} day at school? Would you say not at all, a few times a
month, a few times a week, or every day?” The parent(s) had the option of not at all, a
few times a month, a few times a week, every day, refused, don’t know, and not
ascertained; with P7TLKFUT which asks the question: “Now I would like to ask you
about some things you might talk with {CHILD} about. In the past month, how often
have you talked with {CHILD} about...] talked about (his/her) future?” The parent(s) had
the option of not at all, a few times a month, a few times a week, every day, refused,
don’t know, and not ascertained. In computing P7OFTTLK and P7TLKFUT the new
variable communication produced eight valid categories (NCES 2005).
36
The third independent variable, curfew, was not changed from P7CURFEW but
asked the question: “How often do you…make and enforce curfews for {child}?” The
parent(s) had the option of never, rarely, sometimes, always, refused, don’t know, and not
ascertained.
Finally, strict rules is a computed variable comprised of P7HITPRV which asks
the question: “[Most teenagers misbehave or get into trouble from time to time. When
{child} misbehaves, what do you or {name of spouse/partner} typically do?] Take away
a privilege.” The parent(s) had the option of yes, no refused, don’t know, not ascertained;
and P7TVRUL2 which asks the question: “Are there family rules for {child} about any
of the following…? How early or late {he/she} may watch television (NCES 2005).
Control Variables
Other important variables that were included in the analyses were child’s age,
gender and race, as well as mother’s and father’s education, occupation and family
income. There was an SES measure used to evaluate the education, occupation and
household income of the family. The SES measure was collected during the initial wave
of data collection and is composed of three categories: mother/guardian and
father/guardian education and occupation as well as household income. To define poverty
level, the Census poverty thresholds for 1998 is used. For households with only one
parent available, not all components are defined. For these cases, the SES was computed
averaging the available components (NCES 2005). The variable used for child’s race is
WKRACETH (Child race from parent interview), which is stated above and recoded into
three dummy variables, titled Black Child, Hispanic Child, and AsianOther. The variable
37
used for child’s gender is GENDER which provided two categories male and female and
was recoded into Girl.
The analysis uses multi-regression to compute one dependent variable,
GradesAtSchool, and seven independent variables: P7HWKRUL recoded into
P7HWKRUL2;P7HITPRV recoded into TakePrivilege and P7TVRUL2 recoded into
LateWatchTV, which were combined to generate StrictRules; P7OFTTLK and
P7TLKFUT were combined to generate Communication; P7CURFEW, and P7HPARNT
recoded into seven different variables to isolate each individual family structure:
biological mother and father, biological mother and other-father (step, adoptive, foster),
biological father and other-mother (step, adoptive, foster), biological mother, biological
father, Adoptive parent(two and single), and Guardian(s) (related and unrelated). There
are three control variables: GENDER recoded into Girl; WKRACETH recoded into three
categories: Black/Hispanic, AsianOther and White; W8SESQ5 which is socioeconomic
status.
Summary
The data set used in this research has developed a channel of information to
identify statistically significant factors in children’s academic achievement. The variables
used highlight the types of parental involvement which correlate with success. Activities
such as checking homework, enforcing a curfew, or setting rules for watching television
all signify some form of concerted cultivation. Eating meals together, talking about
school and the future are examples of parental involvement which develops children’s
comfort with adults as well as themselves. All of these variables are connected and
38
require joint understanding to see how each affects the other. Family structure is used to
isolate the effect different types of parental units have on various levels of concerted
cultivation. There were control variables used to make the findings applicable to various
racial groups, income categories, and levels of parental education.
This study utilizes important variables that are limited by the size of the data set,
yet they accurately conceptualize forms of concerted cultivation. Conceptualizations of
parental involvement by researchers vary slightly from study to study and the case here is
no different. I have taken concepts used repeatedly together and separately to evaluate
levels of educational inequality. The conceptualization of parental involvement via rule
setting could use more ways to expand the view of parent’s attempting to customize their
child’s everyday life. For example, the types of friends which are acceptable, the content
of the television being watched, and the order in which activities may be done in relation
to homework and playing outside.
In terms of communication between parent and child, simply speaking during
dinner or about the school day does not accurately assess open lines of communication.
The type of relationship would help explain the level of successful communication and if
any valuable information is being transmitted. An underlying crucial aspect of the family
relationships is the positive/negative state in which it exists. Good communication cannot
always be given when the emotional relationship is hurting. Research in this area
specifically would improve our understanding of the family. Developing a deeper
understanding of the content of the conversations during meals would articulate the
importance and effect such verbal interactions could have on academic achievement.
39
Although the research was limited in which questions were asked and which
groups were interviewed, the ECLS-K 1998-99 is a long and extensive data set
accounting for over 20,000 respondents. The sampling for race was low enough to hinder
the significance of certain variables such as AsianOther. The data was limited in terms of
peer groups and their responses to questions on the survey. The variables accounting for
grades over the year were vague and based upon a parental response. A more objective
measure of the grades earned throughout the year would improve the operationalization
of the dependent variable.
40
Chapter 4
FINDINGS
The results presented some interesting data about the relationship between family
and academic achievement. As would be expected there were variations between family
types, as well as similarities such as family rules for homework and taking away
privileges. My findings reinforce the idea that although concerted cultivation does
produce positive results at times, as the hypotheses stated, it also produces results that
vary in level of achievement. Instead of all the children experiencing concerted
cultivation performing equally well, other variables created obstacles to academic
achievement. The data supports the hypothesis that children of two parent families
perform better academically but rule setting did not improve success in school for
everyone. The differences which appeared in the analyses support the argument that
variations exist within concerted cultivation. The findings suggest the hypotheses are
valid under circumstances where concerted cultivation is not impeded by a lack of
resources or opportunity and conditions. Although more variables would improve this
analysis, the ones which were used in the following tables produced important
conclusions about the family and academic achievement.
The first table in the appendix describes the descriptive statistics used in this
study and the responses of each family type. The following tables are regression outputs
labeled 2a-2g and present the results for biological mother and biological father;
biological mother-other-father; biological father-other-mother; biological mother;
biological father; adoptive parent(s) and guardian(s). The sample as a whole is 14 percent
41
Black, 17 percent Hispanic, 11 percent AsianOther which include American Indian,
Native Hawaiian, and more than one race as well as 58 percent white; 48 percent female
and 52 percent male. The average grades were mostly b’s and the enforcement of curfew
averaged between sometimes and always. Household rules for homework averaged 93
percent.
Descriptive Analyses
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics of the variables separated by the seven family
structures. All family types reported higher percentages of mostly a’s and b’s, ranging
between 30 and 40 percent. There were fewer responses for mostly c’s across all family
types with the highest among biological father and guardians (20-25 percent). Family
rules for homework received a larger amount of yes responses than no, with biological
father-other-mother family type reporting 97.7 percent. Very few reported not setting
rules for homework although biological father reported 7.5 percent against setting rules.
There was a minor variance between whether family types felt it was necessary to set a
curfew. All family types responded always more (75-85 percent) than never for setting
curfew.
Biological mother and biological father, biological mother-other-father and
adoptive parents reported talking about the child’s day at school every day (80-85
percent). Biological father-other-mother, biological mother and biological father reported
talking about school a few times a week (20-30 percent). For talking about the future
biological father-other-mother and adoptive parents reported a few times a month (60-65
percent). A few times a week received the second highest level of responses from
42
biological mother-other-father, biological mother and guardians (25-35 percent). All
seven models reported high levels of taking away privileges with biological motherother-father, biological father-other-mother and adoptive parents all responding yes
almost 90 percent of the time. Rules for how late watch TV received more responses for
yes than no from biological mother-other-father, biological father-other-mother and
adoptive parents (90-95 percent).
There are five categories for race, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Other and White.
Guardians received the highest percent of responses for Black child (36.6 percent).
Hispanic child received its highest responses in biological mother (19 percent). The
adoptive parents’ family type had the most Asian children with 12.1 percent. Other child
received the highest responses from guardians (19.5). White child responses were highest
in biological father-other-mother (72.6 percent). The gender category varied evenly with
children of biological mother-other-father, biological mother and guardians reporting 5060 percent yes for having a female child. There were more responses for having a male
child with biological father-other-mother, biological father and adoptive parents reporting
50-55 percent. Out of the five SES quintiles the first and lowest quintile received the
largest proportion from guardians (43.2 percent). The fifth and highest quintile received
the largest proportion from biological mother and biological father and adoptive parents
(30-35 percent).
Biological Mother and Father
For biological mother and biological father, the regression model significantly
predicts grades at school. The R2 for this regression equals .147 (p<.001), indicating that
43
the model explains 14.7 percent of the variation in grades at school. Family rule for
homework was significant and it was negatively correlated showing a reduction in grades
by .166 levels (B= -.166, p<.001) compared to families without rules for homework,
possibly as a reactionary measure to a drop in grades. Other possibilities include tutoring
sessions the child receives at school which off-set the need for time spent doing
homework at home. This finding conflicts with the data and calls into question other
mediating variables. Often talking about the day at school was significant and is
positively correlated with the dependent variable displaying an increase in grades at
school by .078 levels (B=.078, p<.001) compared to families who spoke less often about
the day at school. This variable supports the hypothesis proving to be a positive influence
on academic achievement. How often parent(s) set curfews was significantly correlated
showing a reduction in grades by .026 levels (B= -.026, p<.050) compared to families
that did not frequently set curfews. This variable calls into question the use of curfews as
a reactionary tool which would explain the negative correlation or the potential for overly
strict rules to decrease grades. This variable could be improved with the use of
ethnographic methodologies which are more qualitative and content orientated with a
deeper focus on the quality or purpose of certain rules, to call into question the positive or
negative effects customizing a child’s life in terms of curfews has on their academic
achievement. How late children could watch television was also significantly correlated
showing an increase in grades by .077 levels (B=.077, p<.050) compared to families that
did not restrict viewing time. This variable expresses the positive effects of customizing a
child’s daily life to promote educational activities and or opportunities for
44
communication. Another significant variable is taking away a privilege which expressed
a reduction in grades by .074 levels (B= -.074, p<.050) compared to families that did not
take away any privileges.
Of the control variables Girl is significant at showing an increase in grades at
school by .245 levels (B=.245, p<.001) compared to males. Black/Hispanic child is
significant showing a reduction in grades at school by .154 levels (B= -.154, p<.001).
AsianOther child is significant showing an increase in grades at school by .75 levels
(B=.75, p<.050). Finally, SES measure is significant showing an increase in grades at
school by .152 levels (B=.152, p<.001). Often talk about the future was not significant.
SES also plays its part supporting the hypotheses as long as both parents are involved and
providing resources allowing the concerted cultivation process the ability to produce
positive results.
Biological Mother-other-father
For biological mother-other-father, the regression model significantly predicts
grades at school. The R2 for this regression equals .101(p<.001), indicating that the
model explains 10.1 percent of the variance in grades at school. Only two variables were
significant. Girl is significant showing an increase in grades at school by .318 levels
(B=.318, p<.001) compared to males. SES measure is significant showing an increase in
grades at school by .165 levels (B=.165, p<.001). Transition in the family can disrupt
school and would be a potential mediating variable showing the significance of rule
setting and communication between children and parents. SES being significant
potentially supports the first hypothesis based upon the underlying notion that more
45
resources provide, when activated, the opportunity for success also considering the help
of kin. Family rule for homework, often set curfews, talk about day at school, talk about
the future, how late watch TV, and take away a privilege were not significant. Of the
control variables race was not a factor.
Biological Father-other-mother
For biological father-other-mother, the regression model significantly predicts
grades at school. The R2 for this regression equals .278 (p<.001), indicating that the
model explains 27.8 percent of the variation in grades at school. How late watch
television was significantly correlated showing a decrease in grades by .590 levels (B= .590, p<.050) compared to families not setting rules on how late watch television. This
variable would benefit from deeper analysis to understand how limiting television could
hurt grades at school as compared to helping. Girl is significant increasing grades at
school by .501 levels (B=.501, p<.001) compared to males. SES measure is significant
showing an increase in grades at school by .234 levels (B=.234, p<.001). A similar
pattern arose here as it did with biological mother-other-father with rule setting and
communication failing to sustain significance. Family rule for homework, talk about day
at school and race were not significant.
Biological Mother
For biological mother, the regression model significantly predicts grades at
school. The R2 for this regression equals .100 (p<.001), indicating that the model
explains 10 percent of the variation in grades at school. How often set curfews was
significantly correlated showing a reduction in grades by .059 levels (B= -.059, p<.050)
46
compared to families that did not frequently set curfews. As stated before ethnographic
research would further develop this variable’s effect on grades and whether or not it is
reactionary to already depreciated grades. Often talk about the day at school is significant
showing an increase in grades at school by .106 levels (B-=.106, p<.050) compared to
families which talk less about the child’s day at school. The significant control variables
are Girl, showing an increase in grades at school by .248 levels (B=.248, p<.001)
compared to males, and Black/Hispanic child, showing a decrease in grades at school by
.215 levels (B= -.215, p<.001).
SES measure is significant showing an increase in grades at school by .124 levels
(B=.124, p<.001). This category conflicts with the first hypothesis that two parent
families are the desired structure for academic success although the second hypothesis is
validated due to the significance communication had. Access to resources, a potential
aspect of hypothesis one is depicted here where SES is significant. This category
represents the ways concerted cultivation varies in level exercised and types of practices
reproduced. Family rule for homework, often talk about the future, how late watch TV,
take away a privilege and AsianOther child were not significant.
Biological Father
For biological father, the model significantly predicts grades at school. The R2 for
this regression equals .233 (p<.001), indicating that the model explains 23.3 percent of
the variation in grades at school. Girl is significant showing an increase in grades at
school by .595 levels (B=.595, p<.001) compared to males. SES measure is significant
showing an increase in grades at school by .281 levels (B=.281, p<.001). Biological
47
father shows similar results as biological parent and step parent. Family rule for
homework, talk about day at school, how late watch TV and race were not significant.
Adoptive Parents
For adoptive parents, the regression model does not significantly predict grades at
school indicating that the model is not significant (p>.105) and cannot explain the
variation in grades at school. Within adoptive parent(s) the significant variable is SES
measure which if significant would potentially show an increase in grades at school by
.153 levels (B=.153, p<.010).
Guardians
For Guardians, the regression model significantly predicts grades at school. The
R2 for this regression equals .070 (p<.010), indicating that the model explains 7 percent
of the variation in grades at school. Girl is significant showing an increase in grades at
school by .450 levels (B=.450, p<.001) compared to males. This category, aside from
adoptive parents was the strongest case against the hypotheses showing no significance
for communication or rule setting. The unseen or unstudied variations require further
research. Family rule for homework, talk about day at school, how late watch TV, race,
and SES measure were not significant.
Summary
Throughout the family types there is a high level of variability. Although a large
portion of the models confirmed few significant variables, some main points stand out.
The child’s gender was significant in every model excluding adoptive parents with girls
performing better than males. Although the research does not directly deal with the issue
48
of gender it has important implications for academic achievement and other studies will
help explain further this finding (American Association of University Women 1992).
Race was also significant in many models only failing to be significant in three of the
seven. The variation between grades going up for AsianOther and going down for
Black/Hispanic highlight structural discrimination and disadvantage that exist for
minorities in today’s society. A possible influence on AsianOther may be the low level of
samples for this category.
SES measure was significant for all but guardians and adoptive parents. Many
variables such as family rules about homework, talking about the day at school, how late
watch TV (which pertains to the hypotheses) and race were statistically not significant in
four or more family types. This creates problems for the hypotheses and reflects the
existence of other mediating variables. Although the hypotheses may be correct in some
circumstances it certainly cannot be said that they hold true over different family types
controlling for resources and lived experiences. These trends in the data will highlight
areas that require further research in the field of children’s education.
49
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION
Inequality in school has many causal factors. This study investigated the effects
the family has on academic achievement with a focus on family structure and parental
involvement. Instead of focusing on the school’s structural influences I focus on the role
family plays in mediating a child’s experience in school through various forms of
concerted cultivation. A child’s time spent within the family is significantly related to
their overall cognitive abilities and speech code which influences their experiences in
school (Hess et al. 1965; Bernstein 1977). Analyzing the different cultural practices as
they exist in various family structures deepens our understanding of why inequality
persists. One aspect of the family that I felt was vital to understand is the fluctuations in
family structure and how that can impede a functioning educational environment and the
ability of the family to fully and effectively apply concerted cultivation. My analysis of
academic achievement focuses on the impact family structure and parenting practices,
such as customization of a child’s daily life through rules setting, have on creating an
educational environment.
The success children experience in school is influenced by the fluctuations in
family structure and level of involvement in the family. Cultural practices which value
activities such as eating dinner together, talking about the future or day at school increase
opportunities for communication and present the opportunity for parents to get involved.
When both parents are not present in the home involvement becomes more
difficult and practices such as setting curfews and taking away privileges become harder
50
to institute, thus disrupting aspects of concerted cultivation. Difficulties arise from the
absence of adults in the home which puts pressure on one person to complete all the tasks
necessary to provide an educational atmosphere conducive to academic achievement.
This can be difficult when work hours are irregular or multiple jobs are held to support
the family.
The findings from the regressions shed light on my hypotheses and the larger field
of research on inequality in education. My analysis both supports and refutes my
hypotheses and my discussion will address the ways even negative correlations say a
significant amount about causal factors influencing disparate levels of academic
achievement.
Two Biological Parents Findings
The strongest family type in terms of significant variables is biological mother
and father in which only one variable, talking about the future, is not significant. The
significance of setting rules for homework and talking about the school day lie in the
ability of parents to gather knowledge of their child’s progress. Part of the process of
being involved requires parents to stay up to date on the progress their children make in
each class they are in and their overall experience in school. Aside from the arena of
comfort that can be developed through routine practices like homework or talking about
school during dinner time, significant effects of these practices are that they provide
opportunities to practice the types of skills important to academic success (Roche and
Ghazarian 2011). The family is the foundational unit on which a child builds their life
51
and when the support they receive is forthcoming and consistent they feel as though they
can achieve more (Lareau 2003).
The application of rules is also significantly related to academic success because
it provides structure to support an academic lifestyle. Structure can be a soothing and
comforting feeling as well as create standards and expectations that promote academic
achievement. If the family allows a child to come home when they please, watch
television late into the night, and not restrict privileges when behavior is unsatisfactory
the child is likely to develop habits that disrupt academic achievement. Expectations
promote success when applied sensibly and not irrationally driving a child to work harder
and attempt to achieve the standards expected of them (Musick and Meier 2009).
My study does not explore the impact of race and gender as deeply as cultural and
parental practices, but research has shown the steady progress females have made in
relation to males and my data was supportive of this (American Association of University
Women 1992). It is possible the types of parental involvement differ by gender in the
family, but this is not something I can substantiate with my research. The impact of race
was also supportive of past research showing African American and Latin American
students suffering while Asian American students succeeded.
As could be expected, the significance of socioeconomic status was present which
supports and reinforces the argument that a lack of access to resources impedes parents
from providing educational supplies and activities which support a child’s academic
progress. When children attend poor schools or during the summer time when they have
no instruction, those parents who possess the means to acquire supplies to create an
52
educational environment outside of school benefit their children and give them a greater
opportunity for success. When the family is unable to provide these “extra” resources the
child suffers and differences appear in long-term academic achievement. Gaps develop
between children while they are in school and once they are formed it is difficult if not
impossible to close. This is why family plays a major role in the development of a child
along with school.
It is important to note some variables which were significant but had a negative
correlation with grades which suggests that rules for homework, curfew, and taking away
privileges may have hurt grades (though it may be more likely a reaction to already
falling grades). This aspect of my study is significantly hindered by the unknown type of
relationship various variables used in the regressions had with a child’s overall grades.
One Biological-Other Parent Findings
Significant differences which appeared in cases for biological mother-other-father
and biological father-other-mother call into question the importance of two-parent
families. The importance two parents play in the family reside most significantly in the
increased amount of time and resources made available to the child. Although the other
parent is not biological the assumption would be that their presence would have a similar
effect in providing support and comfort to the child. Without having the ability to discern
the state of the relationship between the child and other parent it is not enough that they
are available and providing resources to suggest they are as successful as biological
parents in establishing a working bond. The only significant variables in these two
regressions were gender and socioeconomic status. The previous significance rule setting
53
had on academic achievement faded when the second biological parent was replaced in
the home. The significance of gender and socioeconomic status was previously
established, and for these two cases similar effects were found. Different dynamics and
experiences such as fluctuations in family structure (when the biological parent is
replaced by the other parent) could be a cause for disruption of grades and effectiveness
of rules and certain types of involvement. The ability of the family to provide comfort
and support (excluding economic) may be inhibited by the restricting of the family type
from two biological parents to one. An ethnographic approach would allow this argument
to be pursued and locate the mediating variables that may nullify the significance of rule
setting and parental involvement.
There are obvious difficulties faced by the other parent in assuming the role
established by a biological parent. Children are not necessarily as open to input from
other parents and that creates obstacles to involvement. Changes experienced in the
family have an effect on children’s academic achievement and without a deeper
understanding of the variables mediating the significance of rule setting and parental
involvement questions will continue to persist. For this reason I highlight the significance
that qualitative studies could have to increase conceptualization of certain variables in my
study. It is important to note between the two types of family structures with biological
and other parent between 10 and 27 percent of the variation can be explained meaning
there are more variables that require consideration for a full understanding of what
mediates a child’s academic achievement.
54
Single Biological Parent Findings
The findings for single parent homes were largely similar with the exception of
curfews and talking about the school day being significant for biological mothers but not
fathers. Although curfews held a negative correlation suggesting a decrease in grades
when enforced, the relationship is somewhat disguised by the limited amount of
information available on the application and consistency of setting a curfew. Gender and
socioeconomic status were significant and positively correlated suggesting they helped
improve grades. These findings support past research, as shown above and help establish
the over-reaching significance gender and access to resources had on academic
achievement. Due to the limited number of parents in the home access to resources is
more closely tied to a child’s grades. There is the possibility of extended kin being
involved in the family and providing support in ways other than monetarily. This would
flesh out the ways in which providing an educational environment is supported or
prohibited by adults being present in the home.
Before considering the significance of rule setting and parental involvement for
one biological other parents, it could be possible to assign the difficulties children
experience in school to the absence of another parent in the home. Due to the results of
the one biological other parents more questions arise as to what creates difficulties for
children in school. Types of capital whether social, human, or cultural play their part in
mediating the relationship between rule setting and involvement as do an individual’s
experiences, but these are not enough to completely develop the reasons for fluctuating
success academically amongst children.
55
From this discussion of the findings it becomes apparent that certain parental
practices, such as rule setting and communication about the school day are useful to some
but not all family types. The presence of two parents in the home is not the same when
accounting for non-biological parents, adoptive parents, or guardians. For cases where
fluctuations in family structure do not exist there may be an increased opportunity for
applying concerted cultivation. For families experiencing fluctuations such as divorce or
adoption, obstacles impeding involvement or rule setting arise. The consistency that is
present within a family that is involved and supportive gives a child comfort and security
enabling them to be successful in school (Roche and Ghazarian 2011). Questions about
who will be in the home to seek help from or talk with may impede a child’s ability to
communicate their needs, specifically in relation to academic achievement. Due to the
needs of each child varying according to how they learn and adapt to situations,
concerted cultivation takes on various forms to best suit what is needed. Rules for
homework or setting curfews may not be necessary for all children to be successful in
school and because of this a family’s implementation of rules and involvement will vary.
The significance of concerted cultivation is not necessarily to be involved or create rules
according to established standards, but to communicate and understand the needs of a
child to customize their lives to best support their academic achievement. This is why
various forms of concerted cultivation exist and there are multiple ways to cultivate in a
child the standards and skills important to academic achievement.
This suggests that although changing family structures affect academic
achievement so does the application of rules and communication differ across and within
56
family structures. My research supports the notion that two-parent biological families that
enact rule setting and practice communication (talking about school day) provide a better
academic opportunity to those with a step or other parent, single parent, adoptive parents
or guardians. The notion that family structure affects academic achievement outside of
rule setting and communication is also supported with a greater difficulty for students
lacking adults in the home as well as resources. It is not clearly explained how these
relationships have an effect on grades with variables, setting a curfew and limiting how
late television can be watched showing a decrease in grades. I have not presented nor was
I able to find data explaining these types of results which leaves some questions still to be
answered. The possibility that certain rule setting expresses a decrease in grades could be
a response to already struggling achievement rather than actually being detrimental to
academic achievement.
Based on a review of the literature and the regressions run for this study it
becomes evident that what enables a child to be successful in school is not necessarily
access to resources or parents in the home, but an active implementation of resources to
promote an educational environment and parental involvement based on understanding
when and how to provide support to a child. The forms of concerted cultivation Lareau
(2003) established have been supported here and developed further to show the ways
various forms exist. The findings highlight the ways similar family structures differently
apply practices for academic success and experience varied results. Similar to Lareau’s
earlier analysis of cultural capital in Home Advantage (1989), educational success
57
depends not simply on holding valued cultural capital as it does on how such capital is
invested and used to aid the child’s academic achievement.
The limitations of this study based on available data and literature could be
significantly eliminated if a qualitative approach was added to the quantitative focus.
Understanding the deep personal relationships in the family is crucial to comprehending
the intersections and compatibility of certain parental practices, and would generate new
ways to help children with their academic achievement.
58
Variables
APPENDIX
Table 1: Coding of Variables and Descriptive Statistics (N=8,809)
Family Structure
Biological Biological Biological Biological Biological Adoptive
Mother
MotherFatherMother
Father
Parents
Biological
Otherother(7.2%)
(1%)
(Two and
Father
Father
Mother
Single)
(26.5%)
(4.2%)
(.6%)
(.7%)
Grades
Mostly F’s
Mostly D’s
Mostly C’s
Mostly B’s
Mostly A’s
Homework Rules
Yes
No
Set Curfews
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Always
Talk About Day at School
Not at all
A few times a month
A few times a week
Everyday
Guardian
(Related
and
Unrelated)
(1%)
.3%
1.3%
8.6%
34.5%
55.3%
.7%
2.7%
15.9%
43.5%
37.3%
N/A
4%
21.6%
42.4%
32%
1.2%
2.9%
17.9%
41.5%
36.5%
1.5%
2.6%
25.6%
29.7%
40.5%
2.2%
2.9%
18.1%
45.7%
31.2%
2.4%
1%
24.8%
49%
22.8%
93.1%
6.9%
95.5%
4.5%
97.7%
2.3%
94%
6%
92.5%
7.5%
93.8%
6.2%
96.3%
3.7%
11.4%
3.2%
6.4%
79%
7.8%
1.6%
4%
86.6%
5.4%
2.3%
6.2%
86%
7.4%
2.6%
8.5%
81.5%
10.1%
2.5%
10.6%
76.9%
10.3%
4.8%
2.8%
82.1%
6.9%
1.9%
7.9%
83.3%
.3%
2.2%
17.3%
80.2%
.5%
2%
16.8%
80.7%
.8%
2.3%
30.5%
66.4%
.5%
2.5%
20.8%
76.2%
.5%
5.5%
27.6%
66.3%
N/A
2.1%
13.7%
84.2%
1.4%
6.1%
20.2%
72.3%
59
Talk About Future
Not at all
A few times a month
A few times a week
Everyday
Taking Away Privilege
Yes
No
Late Watch TV
Yes
No
Race
Black/Hispanic
Asian/Other
White
Gender
Male
Female
SES Measure
First Quintile
Second Quintile
Third Quintile
Fourth Quintile
Fifth Quintile
4.8%
63.6%
22.2%
9.4%
3.2%
58.2%
25.8%
12.7%
4.7%
61.7%
20.3%
13.3%
4.3%
53.7%
26.5%
15.6%
5.5%
53.8%
24.6%
16.1%
2.1%
65.8%
21.9%
10.3%
5.6%
45.5%
32.4%
16.4%
86%
14%
91.9%
8.1%
89.1%
10.9%
86.7%
13.3%
84%
16%
89%
11%
84.9%
15.1%
89.3%
10.7%
91.3%
8.7%
93%
7%
87.5%
12.5%
86.4%
13.6%
94.5%
5.5%
88.9%
11.1%
20.7%
10.6%
68.6%
26.3%
7%
66.7%
23.4%
4%
72.6%
42.8%
7.9%
49.3%
29.7%
9.9%
60.4%
36.9%
24.8%
68%
49.8%
20%
62%
51%
49%
50.3%
49.7%
54.2%
45.8%
50.1%
49.9%
53.9%
46.1%
51.7%
48.3%
41.5%
58.5%
10.5%
14.3%
17.8%
25%
32%
16.8%
22.4%
26.2%
20.9%
13.7%
15.1%
25.4%
28.6%
16.7%
14.3%
27.2%
22.9%
19.7%
15.3%
14.9%
20.1%
25%
20.7%
22.8%
11.4%
16.3%
15.6%
10.9%
22.4%
34.7%
43.2%
28.2%
15%
9.7%
3.9%
60
Table 2a. Regression Predicting Grades at School for Biological Mother and Biological Father
Predictor
Coefficient
SE
T
P Value
Constant
3.801
.094
40.517
.000
Homework Rules
-.166
.039
-4.275
.000
Set Curfews
-.026
.010
-2.651
.008
Talk About Day at School
.078
.020
3.901
.000
Talk About Future
-.018
.014
-1.296
.195
.077
.031
2.478
.013
-.074
.028
-2.652
.008
.245
.019
13.211
.000
-.154
.025
-6.080
.000
AsianOtherChild
.075
.032
2.353
.019
SES Measure
.152
.008
20.087
.000
Adjusted R-squared
.147
Late Watch TV
Take Away Privilege
Girl
BlackHispanicChild
61
Table 2b. Regression Predicting Grades at School for Biological Mother and Other Father (Step, Adoptive, Foster)
Predictor
Coefficient
SE
T
P Value
Constant
3.632
.294
12.374
.000
Homework Rules
-.138
.140
-.983
.326
Set Curfews
-.022
.033
-.676
.499
Talk About Day at School
.013
.058
.233
.816
Talk About Future
-.020
.038
-.513
.608
.093
.101
.921
.357
-.020
.104
-.192
.848
.318
.056
5.727
.000
-.023
.066
-.355
.723
AsianOtherChild
.145
.110
1.313
.189
SES Measure
.165
.023
7.167
.000
Adjusted R-squared
.101
Late Watch TV
Take away privilege
Girl
BlackHispanicChild
62
Table 2c. Regression Predicting Grades at School for Biological Father and Other Mother (Step, Adoptive, Foster)
`Predictor
Constant
Homework Rules
Coefficient
SE
T
P Value
3.321
.778
4.269
.000
.041
.426
.096
.924
Talk About Day at School
.088
.134
.658
.512
Late Watch TV
-.590
.272
-2.167
.032
.501
.137
3.660
.000
-.271
.159
-1.707
.091
AsianOtherChild
.208
.338
.615
.540
SES Measure
.234
.053
4.435
.000
Adjusted R-squared
.278
Girl
BlackHispanicChild
63
Table 2d. Regression Predicting Grades at School for Biological Mother
Predictor
Coefficient
SE
T
P Value
Constant
3.610
.206
17.564
.000
Homework Rules
-.067
.102
-.649
.516
Set Curfews
-.059
.027
-2.172
.030
Talk About Day at School
.106
.044
2.401
.016
Talk About Future
.028
.029
.963
.336
Late Watch TV
.076
.072
1.058
.290
-.113
.067
-1.689
.091
.248
.044
5.628
.000
BlackHispanicChild
-.215
.050
-4.332
.000
AsianOtherChild
-.076
.087
-.879
.380
SES Measure
.124
.017
7.381
.000
Adjusted R-Squared
.100
Take Away a Privilege
Girl
64
Table 2e. Regression Predicting Grades at School for Biological Father
Predictor
Coefficient
SE
T
P Value
Constant
2.996
.483
6.198
.000
Homework Rules
-.241
.233
-1.036
.302
.099
.689
.491
-.089
.187
-.474
.636
Girl
.595
.130
4.557
.000
BlackHispanicChild
.240
.153
1.573
.118
AsianOtherChild
.075
.211
.358
.721
SES Measure
.281
.052
5.385
.000
Adjusted R-squared
.233
Talk About Day at School
Late Watch TV
.068
65
Table 2f. Regression Predicting Grades at School for Adoptive Parents (Two and Single)
Predictor
Coefficient
SE
T
P Value
3.603
.806
4.472
.000
.119
.362
.329
.743
-.048
.189
-.256
.799
Late Watch TV
.010
.355
.029
.977
Girl
.125
.159
.789
.431
BlackHispanicChild
-.232
.186
-1.251
.213
AsianOtherChild
-.045
.195
-.232
.817
SES Measure
.153
.053
2.889
.005
Adjusted R-squared
.038
Constant
Homework Rules
Talk About Day at School
66
Table 2g. Regression Predicting Grades at School for Guardians (Related and Unrelated)
Predictor
Coefficient
SE
T
P Value
2.855
.410
6.970
.000
Homework Rules
.110
.316
.349
.727
Talk About Day at School
.111
.096
1.151
.251
Late Watch TV
.161
.213
.755
.451
Girl
.450
.123
3.656
.000
-.056
.141
-.393
.695
AsianOtherChild
.042
.173
.244
.807
SES Measure
.079
.055
1.444
.150
Adjusted R-squared
.070
Constant
BlackHispanicChild
67
REFERENCES
Alexander, Karl L, Doris R. Entwisle, and Maxine S. Thompson. 1987. “School
Performance, Status Relations, and the Structure of Sentiment: Bringing the
Teacher Back In.” American Sociological Review 52(5):665-682.
American Association of University Women. 1992. How Schools Shortchange girls. The
AAUW Report. New York, NY: Marlowe and Co.
Anderson, C. Arnold. 1961. “A Skeptical Note on the Relation of Vertical Mobility to
Education.” American Journal of Sociology 66(6):560-570.
Ballarino, Gabriele, Fabrizio Bernardi, Miguel Requena, and Hans Schadee. 2009.
“Persistent Inequalities? Expansion of Education and Class Inequalities in Italy
and Spain.” European Sociological Review 25(1):123-138.
Becker, Gary S. 1964. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with
Special Reference to Education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bernstein, Basil. 1977. "Social Class, Language and Socialization." Pp.473-486 in Power
and Ideology in Education, edited by J. Karabel and A.H. Halsey. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of A Theory of Practice. Cambridge CB2 1RP, Great
Britain: University Press, Cambridge.
Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
68
Bowles, Samuel and Henry M. Levin. 1968. “The Determinants of Academic
Achievement: An Appraisal of Some Recent Evidence.” Journal of Human
Resources 3(1):3-24.
_____. 2000. “Does Schooling Raise Earnings by Making People Smarter?” Pp. 118-136
in Meritocracy and Economic Inequality, edited by Kenneth Arrow, Samuel
Bowles, and Steven Durlauf. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
_____. 2002. “Schooling in Capitalist America Revisited.” Sociology of Education
75(1):1-18.
Bowles, Samuel, Herbert Gintis, and Melissa Osborne. 2001. “The Determinants of
Earnings: A Behavioral Approach.” Journal of Economic Literature 39(4):11371176.
Breen, R., Ruud Luikx, Walter Muller, and Reinhard Pollak. 2009. “Non-Persistent
Inequality in Educational Attainment: Evidence from Eight European Countries.”
American Journal of Sociology 114(5):1475-1521.
Bronfenbrenner, Urie and Pamela Morris. 1998. “The Bioecological Model of Human
Development” Pp. 793-828 in Handbook of Child Psychology, Theoretical
Models of Human Development, edited by W. Damon and R. M. Lerner.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Cheadle, Jacob E. 2008. "Educational Investment, Family Context, and Children's Math
and Reading Growth from Kindergarten through the Third Grade." Sociology of
Education 81(1):1-31.
69
Cheadle, Jacob E. and Paul R. Amato. 2010. “A Quantitative Assessment of Lareau’s
Qualitative Conclusions About Class, Race, and Parenting.” Journal of Family
Issues 32(5):679-706.
Coleman, James S. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American
Journal of Sociology 94:S95-S120.
Coleman, James S., Ernest Q. Campbell, Carol F. Hobson, James M. McPartland,
Alexander M, Mood, Frederic D. Weinfeld, and Robert L. York. 1966. Equality of
Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Collins, Randall. 1971. “Functional and Conflict Theories of Educational Stratification.”
American Sociological Review 36(6):1002-1019.
Dauber, Susan L., Karl L. Alexander, and Doris R. Entwisle. 1996. “Tracking and
Transitions Through the Middle Grades: Channeling Educational Trajectories.”
Sociology of Education 69(4):290-307.
Dore, R.P. 1976. “Human Capital Theory, the Diversity of Societies and the Problem of
Quality in Education.” Higher Education 5(1):79-102.
Entwisle, Doris R. and Karl L. Alexander. 1996. “Family Type and Children’s Growth in
Reading and Math Over the Primary Grades.” Journal of Marriage and Family
58(2):341-355.
Esping-Anderson, G. 2004.“Untying the Gordian Knot of Social Inheritance.” Research
in Social Stratification and Mobility 21:115-138.
Fordham, Signithia and John U. Ogbu. 1986. "Black Students' School Success: Coping
With the "Burden of 'Acting White.'" Urban Review 18(1):275-279.
70
Gamoran, Adam and Mark Berends. 1987. “The Effects of Stratification in Secondary
Schools: Synthesis of Survey and Ethnographic Research.” Review of Educational
Research 57(4):415-435.
Goldthorpe, J.H. 1996. “Class Analysis and the Reorientation of Class Theory: The Case
of Persisting Differentials in Educational Attainment.” British Journal of
Sociology 47(3):481-505.
Gould, Jay. 1996. The Mismeasure of Man. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company,
Inc.
Guo, Guang. 1998. “The Time of the Influences of Cumulative Poverty on Children’s
Cognitive Ability and Achievement.” Social Forces 77(1):257-288.
Han, Wen-Jui and Liana E. Fox. 2011. “Parental Work Schedules and Children’s
Cognitive Trajectories.” Journal of Marriage and Family 73(10):962-980.
Heath, Shirley Brice. 1983. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities
and Classrooms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hedges, Larry V. and Amy Nowell. 1998. “Black-White Test Score Convergence Since
1965.” Pp. 149-181 in The Black-White Test Score Gap, edited by Christopher
Jencks and Meredith Phillips. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
Hernstein, Richard. 1973. IQ in the Meritocracy. Boston, MA: Little-Brown.
Hess, Robert D., Virginia Shipman, and David Jackson. 1965. "Some New Dimensions in
Providing Equal Educational Opportunity." The Journal of Negro Education
34(3):220-231.
71
Hurn, Christopher. 1993. The Limits and Possibilities of Schooling: An Introduction to
the Sociology of Education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Jensen, Arthur. 1973. Educability and Group Differences. New York, NY: Harper and
Row.
Kozol, Jonathan. 2005. The Shame of the Nation. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
Lareau, Annette. 1989. Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in
Elementary Education. New York, NY: Falmer Press.
_____. 2003. Unequal childhoods Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Lee, Valerie E. and David T. Burkam. 2002. Inequality at the Starting Gate. Washington,
DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Lee, Sang Min, Jason Kushner, and Seong Ho Cho. 2007. “Effects of Parent’s Gender,
Childs’s Gender, and Parental Involvement on the Academic Achievement of
Adolescents in Single Parent Families.” Sex Roles 56:149-157.
Lee, Sang Min and Jason Kushner. 2008. “Single-Parent Families: he Role of Parent’s
and Child’s Gender on Academic Achievement.” Gender and Education
20(6):607-621.
MacLeod, Jay. 2009. Ain't Not Makin It. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Magnuson, Katherine A., Marcia K. Meyers, Christopher J. Ruhm, and Jane Waldfogel.
2004. “Inequality in Pre-school Education and School Readiness.” American
Educational Research Journal 41(1):115-157.
72
McNeal Jr., Ralph B. 1999. “Parental Involvement as Social Capital: Differential
Effectiveness on Science Achievement, Truancy, and Dropping Out.” Social
Forces 78(1):117-144.
Merida, Kevin. 1995, October 9. “Worry, Frustration Build for Many in the Black
Middle-Class.” Washington Post, pp. A1, A22-A23.
Musick, Kelly and Ann Meier. 2009. “Are Both Parents Always Better Than One?
Parental Conflict and Young Adult Well-Being.” Social Science Research 39:814830.
Oakes, Jeannie. 1985. Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Orr, Amy J. 2003. “Black-White Differences in Achievement: The Importance of
Wealth.” Sociology of Education 76(4):281-304.
Oseguera, Leticia, Gilberto Q. Conchas, and Eduardo Mosqueda. 2011. “Beyond Family
and Ethnic Culture: Understanding Preconditions for the Potential Realization of
Social Capital.” Youth Society 43(3):1136-1166.
Phillips, Meredith, Mames Crouse, and James Ralph. 1998. “Does the Black-White Test
Score Gap Widen After Children Enter School?” Pp. 229-272 in The Black-White
Test Score Gap, edited by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Pong, Suet-Ling, Jaap Dronkers and Gillian Hampden. 2003 “Family Policies and
Children’s School Achievement in Single and Two Parent Families.” Journal of
Marriage and Family 6(8):681-699.
73
Ravitch, Diane. 2010. The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How
Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Rist, Ray C. 1970. “Student Social Class and Teacher Expectations: The Self-Fulfilling
Prophecy in Ghetto Education.” Harvard Educational Review 40(3):411-451.
Roche, Kathleen M. and Sharon R. Ghazarian. 2011. “The Value of Family Routines for
the Academic Success of Vulnerable Adolescents.” Journal of Family Issues
33(7):874-897.
Roscigno, Vincent J. 1995. “The Social Embeddedness of Racial Educational Inequality:
The Black-White Gap and the Impact of Racial and Local Political-Economic
Contexts.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 14:137-168.
_____. 1998. “Race and the Reproduction of Educational Disadvantage.” Social Forces
76(3):1033-1060.
Rossi, Alice. 1984. “Gender and Parenthood.” American Sociological Review 49(1):1-19.
Ricciuti, Henry N. 2004. “Single Parenthood, Achievement, and Problem Behavior in
White, Black, and Hispanic Children.” The Journal of Educational Research
97(4):196-206.
Smith, Judith R., Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and Pamela Klebanov. 1997. “Consequences of
Living in Poverty for Young Children’s Cognitive and Verbal Ability and Early
School Achievement.” Pp. 132-189 in Consequences of Growing Up Poor, edited
by Greg J. Duncan, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
74
US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2005. Early
childhood longitudinal study, kindergarten class of 1998-1999. Psychometric
report for the third grade. Washington, DC: Us Department of Education.